On 12/04/2023 15:17, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 12/04/23 15:12, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto:
On 12/04/2023 15:03, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 12/04/23 14:59, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto:
On 12/04/2023 13:27, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Add a compatible string for MediaTek Helio X10 MT6795: this SoC uses
the same DSI PHY as MT8173.
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,dsi-phy.yaml | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,dsi-phy.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,dsi-phy.yaml
index 26f2b887cfc1..a9f78344efdb 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,dsi-phy.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,dsi-phy.yaml
@@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ properties:
- enum:
- mediatek,mt7623-mipi-tx
- const: mediatek,mt2701-mipi-tx
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - mediatek,mt6795-mipi-tx
+ - const: mediatek,mt8173-mipi-tx
AFAIK, it should be:
- items:
- const: mediatek,mt6795-mipi-tx
- const: mediatek,mt8173-mipi-tx
Since it isn't respected above for mt7623, it may be tolerated.
Please, take this comment as a suggestion, isn't a NAK from me.
First of all, Thanks!
I want to explain, though, the reason for that.
If you check all the commits, on some I did it as you just proposed, while
on some others I did it with an enum before const: that's simply because I
*totally expect* some to grow, while others (const - const) I was either
unsure, or totally *not* expecting them to grow soon!
That's what I thought. IMHO, if someone add another compat later, he will be
on charge to change the const by enum front of your "mediatek,mt6795-mipi-tx".
But my opinion is probably not the most popular.
I will not make the same feedback for the other patches in this series.
I honestly don't know what's the most popular opinion about that... but whatever,
in any case... just want to make sure to communicate that I don't really have
strong opinions about doing it one way or the other.
The arguments in favor and against that are probably 1:1... :-D
Then let me throw in another one :)
Take into account that if we expect the compatible to be added somtimes in the
future (not the near future) this code will lay around for some time. People
will take this code as an example for new code, then we will need to explain
it... In that sense it would make more sense to have all made const: const: and
change this to enum once a new compatible is added to the mix.
Said all this, I leave it to the DT maintainers to decide :D
Regards,
Matthias
