On 2/28/23 05:16, Xingyu Wu wrote:
On 2023/2/28 19:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:57:58AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 28/02/2023 11:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:36:49AM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 10:44, Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2023/2/26 22:14, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the dt-bingdings need to rename, and which one could be better,
'starfive,jh71x0-wdt.yaml' or 'starfive,jh-wdt.yaml'?
Sure, starfive,jh71x0-wdt.yaml sounds good to me.
I feel like a common comment I see from the dt folks is to not put
wildcards in filenames & just pick the first compatible.
I could very well be wrong on that front though...
First compatible is a bit better, unless you are sure this will cover
all such compatibles now and in the future. For many bindings the
family/wildcards were fine in filename.
Ahh cool, good to know what the specific policy is - thanks!
If this watchdog driver is improved to also support JH7100 in next patch,
it seems more reasonable to rename the dt-bingdings to 'starfive,jh71x0-wdt.yaml'.
Up to the devicetree maintainers to decide, but I for my part never accept
wildcards in file names. You can not guarantee that all of jh71[0-9]0 will
be supported by this set of bindings. On top of that, when / if you add
support for anything outside that range (say, jh7200 or jh8100 or jh7101
or whatever) you'd have an even worse problem. Are you then going to suggest
renaming the file to jhxxxx-wdt ? Or one digit at a time ?
Guenter
