On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 3:09 AM Yassine Oudjana <yassine.oudjana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. I can only assume there are users unless you tell me otherwise (in the commit msg). Rob
