On 29/11/2023 17:41, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml | 52 ++++++++++++++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml >>>> index 387976ed36d5..eece390114a3 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml >>>> @@ -21,23 +21,35 @@ properties: >>>> - amlogic,meson-g12a-ee-pwm >>>> - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-ab >>>> - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-cd >>>> - - amlogic,meson-s4-pwm >>>> + deprecated: true >>>> - items: >>>> - const: amlogic,meson-gx-pwm >>>> - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-pwm >>>> + deprecated: true >>>> - items: >>>> - const: amlogic,meson-gx-ao-pwm >>>> - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-ao-pwm >>>> + deprecated: true >>>> - items: >>>> - const: amlogic,meson8-pwm >>>> - const: amlogic,meson8b-pwm >>>> + deprecated: true >>> >>> I think deprecated should be moved in a third patch >> >> The complain on v2 was that it was not clear the new binding was making >> the old one obsolete. It looked to me that the deprecation old bindings >> needed to go together with the introduction of the new. >> >> I don't mind one way or the other >> >> Is there a rule somewhere about this ? > > Not sure about that, I don't think it's a problem to have both valid > at the same time, setting them deprecated afterwards looks cleaner > to avoid mixing too much changes at the same time. For me current order is correct and intuitive: you add new binding, because old binding was wrong, so the old binding should be deprecated. Otherwise you have a state with both new and old binding and one could question - why did we need new binding? For dtschema it does not matter, but it matters how we read the code. Best regards, Krzysztof
