On 05/10/2022 13:15, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote: > On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 13:00 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 05/10/2022 12:13, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc- >>>>> child.yaml >>>>> index 6e3995bb1630..477189973334 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml >>>>> @@ -230,6 +230,13 @@ properties: >>>>> Wait-pin used by client. Must be less than "gpmc,num-waitpins". >>>>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>>>> >>>>> + gpmc,wait-pin-polarity: >>>> >>>> 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'. >>> >>> You are right. But nevertheless I can't agree with that in this patch series. >>> I don't want to break consistency, since all bindings currently use 'gpmc'. At least this applies >>> to the "ti,gpmc-child.yaml". >>> >>> I think it makes more sense to create a complete new patch series for that specific change? This change >>> wouldn't fit thematically the current patch series. >>> >> >> So you want to add new property incorrectly named and immediately new >> patch which fixes the name? No, please squash this new patch into this. >> > No that's not what I meant. Currently all bindings in "ti,gpmc-child.yaml" start with "gpmc," and introducing > a single binding in this file with "ti," feels like breaking consistency. > > The "new" patch series should address **all** bindings in this file and all device trees currently using "gpmc," > bindings. So finally we have the current patch series introducing the wait pin handling in a consisten way and then another > patch series which changes all "gpmc," to "ti,". Isn't this exactly what I said? First add gpmc (so incorrectly named property) and then fix it to proper name (TI)? So squash that part of second patch which relates to this one, into this patch. Please do not commit incorrect properties, just because they are consistent. > If it makes more sense to directly introduce the "ti,wait-pin-polarity" instead of "gpmc,wait-pin-polarity" then I will do. Just > give me a short feedback. > You got it already: 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'. Best regards, Krzysztof
