On 30/11/2023 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
Ack thx for the clarification
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Thanks,
Neil
