On Mar 4, 2024, at 12:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 04/03/2024 08:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 03/03/2024 18:21, Charles Perry wrote: >>> On Feb 27, 2024, at 3:10 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/02/2024 20:50, Charles Perry wrote: >>>>> Document the SelectMAP interface of Xilinx 7 series FPGA. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Charles Perry <charles.perry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../bindings/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml | 86 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000000000..08a5e92781657 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ >>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>>> +--- >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/xlnx,fpga-selectmap.yaml# >>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>> + >>>>> +title: Xilinx SelectMAP FPGA interface >>>>> + >>>>> +maintainers: >>>>> + - Charles Perry <charles.perry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> + >>>>> +description: | >>>>> + Xilinx 7 Series FPGAs support a method of loading the bitstream over a >>>>> + parallel port named the SelectMAP interface in the documentation. Only >>>>> + the x8 mode is supported where data is loaded at one byte per rising edge of >>>>> + the clock, with the MSB of each byte presented to the D0 pin. >>>>> + >>>>> + Datasheets: >>>>> + >>>>> https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/user_guides/ug470_7Series_Config.pdf >>>>> + >>>>> +allOf: >>>>> + - $ref: /schemas/memory-controllers/mc-peripheral-props.yaml# >>>>> + >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + enum: >>>>> + - xlnx,fpga-xc7s-selectmap >>>>> + - xlnx,fpga-xc7a-selectmap >>>>> + - xlnx,fpga-xc7k-selectmap >>>>> + - xlnx,fpga-xc7v-selectmap >>>>> + >>>>> + reg: >>>>> + description: >>>>> + At least 1 byte of memory mapped IO >>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>>> + >>>>> + prog_b-gpios: >>>> >>>> I commented on this and still see underscore. Nothing in commit msg >>>> explains why this should have underscore. Changelog is also vague - >>>> describes that you brought back underscores, instead of explaining why >>>> you did it. >>>> >>>> So the same comments as usual: >>>> >>>> No underscores in names. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>> >>> Hello Krzysztof, >>> >>> Yes, I've gone full circle on that issue. Here's what I tried so far: >> >> And what part of the commit description allows me to understand this? >> I have a changelog in the cover letter: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240221195058.1281973-1-charles.perry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> 1) Reuse the same gpio names: Duplicates errors of the past, Krzysztof >>> doesn't like it. >>> 2) Different gpio names for new driver only: Makes the driver code >>> overly complicated, Yilun doesn't like it. >> >> That's a new driver, right? So what is complicated here? You have new >> code and you take prog-b or prog_b? >> >>> 3) Change gpio names for both drivers, deprecate the old names: Makes >>> the DT binding and the driver code overly complicated, Rob doesn't >>> like it. >> >> I don't think I proposed changing existing bindings. >> >>> >>> I think that while the driver code shouldn't be the driving force for >>> the DT spec, it can be a good indication that the spec is unpractical to >>> implement. >> >> What is impractical in implementing this? You just pass either A or B to >> function requesting GPIO. Just choose proper name. >> It's not complicated but it requires more code than if "prog_b" had been used. >>> >>> In this case, there are two interfaces on a chip that uses the same GPIO >>> protocol, it would only make sense that they use the same names, this >>> discards solution #2. >> >> I don't understand this. You have devm_gpiod_get() in your new code. Why >> is it difficult to use different name? Yilun asked to avoid changing the names between the two drivers. First comment in this mail: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zb9GkY6cMtR+4xOX@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050/ Yilun, let me know if this is something you'd accept as this is a concern for the device tree maintainers. > > And I forgot to emphasize: none of these is mentioned in commit msg, so > for v5 you will get exactly the same complains. And for every other > patch which repeats the same and does not clarify caveats or exceptions. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Should I keep my changelog in the individual commits? I thought the norm was to put this the cover letter. Regards, Charles
