On 08/11/2023 10:13, Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thank you very much for your review. > > > On 11/7/23 08:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 06/11/2023 15:18, gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Adds clock and reset binding entries for STM32MP25 SoC family >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> This was based on some very old tree. Please work on latest release, >> maintainer's tree or linux-next. Otherwise we need to point the same >> issues we already fixed. This would be quite a waste of time, don't you >> think? > > To make sure I understood the problem and wouldn't repeat it, I pushed > my series starting from the tag 'next-20231031. > > Or is it related to the content of the YAML file? I meant that you: 1. Worked on old tree and used old files as starting template, 2. Worked on old tree, used get_maintainers.pl and send it. This could be any combination of above. All of them are not the way you should do. And you should notice it through bounces of incorrect emails. Very old emails. >>> @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause */ >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics 2023 - All Rights Reserved >>> + * Author(s): Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> + */ >>> + >>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_STM32MP25_RESET_H_ >>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_STM32MP25_RESET_H_ >>> + >>> +#define SYS_R 8192 >> NAK, don't put register values into the bindings. There is no single >> need of it. Use IDs (which start from 0 and are incremented by 1) or >> drop it. >> > My STM32MP25 driver is based on the same binding as the STM32MP13, which > is already upstreamed last year. > > I will update also the YAML file of the STM32MP13 for the above remarks. > > But should I update the binding values of the STM32MP13 and try a > solution about backward compatible ? You cannot change existing binding. I should have given you the same comments for STM32MP13 year ago, but that time I was too busy with all the reviews to enforce also the register constants in the bindings. > > The idea was to have the same reset driver for all STM32MP platforms > You can keep the driver, I care less how it is written. What I oppose is to add new register values as binding IDs. Why? Because these are not IDs and your driver is not using them. If these were IDs, your driver would use them and I would expect them to start from 0. Just like your clock driver is doing. So just drop this reset binding header changes. You don't need them. Feel free to store such register values in a header in /boot/dts/ directory, to make it clear these are only helpers for DTS, not bindings. This will also allow you in the future to change them, unlike bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
