Re: [RFC PATCH 07/16] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: add new compatible strings

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/03/2023 09:15, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 1.03.2023 05:44, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 07:46:36PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2023 20:33, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:39:23PM +0300, arinc9.unal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the ralink,rt2880-pinmux compatible string. It had been removed from
>>>>> the driver which broke the ABI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the mediatek compatible strings. Change the compatible string on the
>>>>> examples with the mediatek compatible strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7621-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt305x-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt3883-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>>    5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> index 1e63ea34146a..531b5f616c3d 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> @@ -17,7 +17,10 @@ description:
>>>>>    properties:
>>>>>      compatible:
>>>>> -    const: ralink,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - mediatek,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>> +      - ralink,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>
>>>> We don't update compatible strings based on acquistions nor marketing
>>>> whims. If you want to use 'mediatek' for new things, then fine.
>>>
>>> Understood. Only the SoCs with rtXXXX were rebranded, the mtXXXX SoCs share
>>> the same architecture from Ralink, so they were incorrectly called Ralink
>>> SoCs.
>>>
>>> I can remove the new strings from Ralink SoCs and add them only for MediaTek
>>> SoCs. Or you could make an exception for this one, regarding the situation.
>>> Whatever you think is best.
>>
>> I'm not in a position to make an exception as I know little about this
>> platform. Carrying both strings is a NAK. Either you (and everyone using
>> these platforms) care about the ABI and are stuck with the "wrong"
>> string. In the end, they are just unique identifiers. Or you don't care
>> and break the ABI and rename everything. If you do that, do just that in
>> your patches and make it crystal clear in the commit msg that is your
>> intention and why that is okay.
> 
> Ralink had their MIPS SoCs pre-acquisition, RT2880, etc. MediaTek 
> introduced new SoCs post-acquisition, MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and 
> MT7688, utilising the same platform from Ralink, sharing the same 
> architecture code, pinctrl core driver, etc.
> 
> I don't intend to break the ABI at all. On the contrary, I fix it where 
> possible.
> 
> If I understand correctly, from this conversation and what Krzysztof 
> said, all strings must be kept on the schemas so I can do what I said on 
> the composed mail. Only match the pin muxing information on the strings 
> that won't match multiple pin muxing information from other schemas.
> 
> This way we don't break the ABI, introduce new compatible strings while 
> keeping the remaining ones, and make schemas match correctly.
> 
> Let me know if this is acceptable to you.

If by "introduce new compatible strings" you mean duplicate compatibles
to fix the ralink->mediatek, then you ignored entire email from Rob -
this and previous. We don't do this. Leave them as is.

If you meant something else, explain more...

Best regards,
Krzysztof