Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Combine MediaTek MT67xx pinctrl binding docs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 09:20:43 AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 19/09/2022 19:01, Yassine Oudjana wrote:
 From: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Documents for MT6779, MT6795 and MT6797 that currently exist share
 most properties, and each one has slightly differently worded
 descriptions for those properties. Combine all three documents into
one common document for all MT67xx SoC pin controllers, picking a few
 parts from each and accounting for differences such as items in reg
 and reg-names properties. Also document the MT6765 pin controller
which currently has a driver but no DT binding documentation. It should be possible to also include bindings for MT8183 and MT8188, but these
 have some additional properties that might complicate things a bit,
 so they are left alone for now.


  properties:
    compatible:
 -    const: mediatek,mt6795-pinctrl
 +    oneOf:
 +      - enum:
 +          - mediatek,mt6765-pinctrl
 +          - mediatek,mt6795-pinctrl
 +          - mediatek,mt6797-pinctrl
 +      - items:
 +          - const: mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl
 +          - const: syscon

No, this is not like old bindings at all. It's not merging, it's a
change sneaked inside huge diff. Also - probably totally untested on DTS
(or old bindings were broken).


Actually this change was made specifically so that it remains (probably becomes?) compatible with existing DTS and passes checks. mt6779.dtsi currently has the syscon compatible string but it wasn't listed along with mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl in the old document, but instead there was something in the description about putting the pinctrl node under a syscon node, which isn't the case in the existing DTS. This patch passed both dt_binding_check and dtbs_check. Anyway, I see how I failed to describe this change, so I'll go through the patch again and try to find any other small changes I might've made and forgotten about, and either put them in separate patches or describe them in the commit message, whichever one you think is better. Also, do I make those changes in the original documents then combine or combine first then make them in the new one?

Thanks,
Yassine

(Sorry for the spam, my client was misconfigured so it previously sent HTML instead of plain text.)


That's a no-go.

Best regards,
Krzysztof





[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux