On 09/01/2024 16:22, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Am Dienstag, 9. Januar 2024, 16:15:30 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: >> On 09/01/2024 14:35, Quentin Schulz wrote: >>> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> There are 6 SPI controllers on RK3399 and they are all numbered in the >>> TRM, so let's add the appropriate aliases to the main DTSI so that any >>> RK3399-based board doesn't need to define the aliases themselves to >>> benefit from stable SPI indices in userspace. >> >> But that contradicts the point that board should define aliases for >> exposable interfaces. Sorry, that's a NAK. > > didn't we have this same discussion some weeks ago? ;-) . We could have and my feedback might be repeated every time someone does something against common policy or common sense without explaining it. > > I.e. spi2 on Rockchip socs is called spi2 in _all_ SoC documentation, This does not matter. > lines in _all_ schematics are also always called spi2_foo , so as before If you mean board schematics, then this matters. > I really don't see any value in repeating the very same aliases in > _every_ board. > > Same for i2c, uart . > The same as in all previous discussions: the board labels them and these should match the board labeling. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/CAK8P3a25iYksubCnQb1-e5yj=crEsK37RB9Hn4ZGZMwcVVrG7g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/all/27455049.omNFrla0xU@wuerfel/ These are replies from your upstream maintainer, if you disagree with me. Best regards, Krzysztof
