On 11/10/2024 7:56 pm, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 03:03:46PM +0300, Yassine Oudjana wrote:
From: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mediatek,pinctrl-mt6795.yaml has different node name patterns which match
bindings of other MediaTek pin controllers, ref for pinmux-node.yaml which
has a description of the pinmux property, as well as some additional
descriptions for some pin configuration properties. Pull those changes
into mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml and adjust the example DTS to match in
preparation to combine the MT6795 document into it.
Signed-off-by: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml | 38 ++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml
index 3bbc00df5548d..352a88d7b135e 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml
@@ -111,12 +111,12 @@ allOf:
- "#interrupt-cells"
patternProperties:
- '-[0-9]*$':
+ '-pins$':
Worst case, this could be an ABI break. Best case, it's churn for
mt6779. Is it worth unifying?
It's better than keeping different patterns, isn't it? We wouldn't have
ended up here if they were made as one in the beginning as it was ought
to be considering how similar the hardware is. It's easier to change now
since nothing is using it yet.
