Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: DT bindings: Tegra AHB: note base address change

[Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/19/2015 10:34 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > On 03/19/2015 09:33 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/17/2015 02:32 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > > > For Tegra132 and later chips, we can now use the correct hardware base
> > > > > address for the Tegra AHB IP block in the DT data.  Update the DT
> > > > > binding
> > > > > documentation to reflect this change.
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git
> > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
> > > > > index 067c979..7692b4c 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
> > > > > @@ -2,10 +2,15 @@ NVIDIA Tegra AHB
> > > > >
> > > > >     Required properties:
> > > > >     - compatible : For Tegra20, must contain "nvidia,tegra20-ahb".  For
> > > > > -  Tegra30, must contain "nvidia,tegra30-ahb".  Otherwise, must contain
> > > > > -  '"nvidia,<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"' where <chip> is tegra124,
> > > > > -  tegra132, or tegra210.
> > > > > -- reg : Should contain 1 register ranges(address and length)
> > > > > +  Tegra30, must contain "nvidia,tegra30-ahb".  For Tegra114 and
> > > > > Tegra124,
> > > > > must
> > > > > +  contain '"nvidia,<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"' where <chip> is
> > > > > tegra114
> > > > > +  or tegra124.  For Tegra132, the compatible string must contain
> > > > > +  "nvidia,tegra132-ahb".
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- reg : Should contain 1 register ranges(address and length).  On
> > > > > Tegra20,
> > > > > +  Tegra30, Tegra114, and Tegra124 chips, the low byte of the physical
> > > > > base
> > > > > +  address of the IP block must end in 0x04.  On DT files for later
> > > > > chips,
> > > > > the
> > > > > +  actual hardware base address of the IP block should be used.
> > > >
> > > > A table-based approach rather than prose might make this more legible?
> > > >
> > > > - compatible: Must contain the following:
> > > >     Tegra20:  "nvidia,tegra20-ahb"
> > > >     Tegra30:  "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
> > > >     Tegra114: "nvidia,tegra114-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
> > > >     Tegra124: "nvidia,tegra124-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
> > > >     Tegra132: "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
> > > >     Tegra210: "nvidia,tegra210-ahb", "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
> > > >
> > > > With any luck, we can extend that final item for future chips to be:
> > > >
> > > >     Tegra210, TegraNNN:
> > > >               "nvidia,tegra<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we format the 114/124 entry that way too.
> > >
> > > I think I'm just going to drop this patch, since Russell prefers that the
> > > workaround is applied in the driver.
> > >
> > > With regards to using tables rather than narrative descriptions: perhaps
> > > consider a patch to
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt ?  I don't know
> > > what the DT binding documentation maintainers' future plans are with
> > > regards to automated documentation reflow, etc., but submitting a patch
> > > there would stimulate at least some coordination on the issue.
> >
> > I don't think it's appropriate for that file to dictate that, in the same way
> > that coding style documentation generally doesn't address that kind of detail
> > regarding code structure.
>
> We do indeed specify details like this in our documentation guidelines.
> Here are two examples:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt#n103
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/CodingStyle#n464

Perhaps I phrased my point slightly differently form the core of what I 
meant.

I'm not aware that review feedback can't address topics that are not 
already addressed by the documentation. Is there such a rule?

Equally, I think if you want the documentation to address a particular 
point, it's appropriate for you to submit a patch to the documentation 
to update it, rather than ask the reviewer to do so before accepting the 
review feedback.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html