On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 3:27 AM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Il 11/10/24 18:56, Rob Herring ha scritto: > > 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? > > > All those MediaTek pinctrl bindings are mostly the same, where only the pin > definitions in the binding header does actually change. > > I think that it's worth unifying them, not only to get rid of the duplication > but mostly for consistency between all of those subnode names which are wildly > differing for no real reason... and consistency is a long time issue with > MediaTek bindings/dts in general (which is way way way better now, but still)... > > Besides - just for context and nothing else: the driver doesn't care about > the names of the subnodes, anyway... so while this is technically an ABI break > it's not really creating any functionality issue, and then, actually, Yassine > is also modifying the devicetrees to comply with his consistency changes, so, > in my own perspective, it's still acceptable. Wait, I thought there were no users? We generally only consider node names ABI when/if something or someone cares. Most of the time it doesn't matter. For the pinctrl nodes, it's really just a question of churn renaming a lot of nodes. Ultimately, it's up to you. I only care that the implications of the changes are clear in the commit msg. Rob
