On 11/06/2024 15:07, Benjamin Mugnier wrote: > >>> >>> Will this be ok for you ? Tell me your thoughts. >> >> It seems you are making some changes assuming there is some error to be >> fixed, but there is none. Compatible is just some unique string, so the >> original compatible, although unfortunate, is okay and must not be >> changed. I already explained that adding new compatibles for such cases >> is only for exceptions. Is this exception? No. You provided no rationale >> to make it an exception. > > Thank you. I think I failed to provide some details : > > The change is motivated by a will of consistency in naming. Consistency is a preference and not really a reason here. Could be named "st,yellow-elephant" and it would be kind of fine... > As you correctly mentioned in the vd56g3 series [1], bindings should be > 'vendor,device'. This will be changed for the vd56g3 series v3 by Yeah, but that ship has sailed. Where is the answer about all the users? You pick pieces of my arguments and ignore some parts of it. None of this is suitable for exception. Style or preference is not argument for exception. > Sylvain, but the vgxy61 binding is already badly named. > We will then have these 2 bindings in the wild : st,vd56g3 and > st,st-vgxy61, for very similar sensors. Hence the will to add a > st,vgxy61 binding for consistency. Nope. > This also prepares the ground for new camera sensor drivers we plan to > submit later on, and that will respect the st,device binding naming scheme. Nope > > Is it the correct way to go ? Nope, sorry. I already said this several times in this email thread - answers here and in other emails. Now, again. When I said about exceptions, I really meant exceptions, e.g. something is broken or something never worked and has to be fixed. Style or preference is not this case. No point to keep arguing how style is important for you. Best regards, Krzysztof
