Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mediatek: deprecate custom drive strength property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/03/2023 15:41, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 28/03/23 15:06, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto:
>> Deprecate mediatek,drive-strength-adv which shall not exist, that was an
>> unnecessary property that leaked upstream from downstream kernels and
>> there's no reason to use it.
>>
>> The generic property drive-strength-microamp should be used instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8183-pinctrl.yaml      | 8 ++++++--
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8365-pinctrl.yaml      | 6 +++++-
>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8183-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8183-pinctrl.yaml
>> index c30cd0d010dd..b82a066b91ec 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8183-pinctrl.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8183-pinctrl.yaml
> 
> Thanks for doing MT8183!!!
> 
>> @@ -110,8 +110,13 @@ patternProperties:
>>             drive-strength:
> 
> ..snip..
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8365-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8365-pinctrl.yaml
>> index 4b96884a1afc..347f533776ba 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8365-pinctrl.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mediatek,mt8365-pinctrl.yaml
>> @@ -91,8 +91,13 @@ patternProperties:
>>   
>>             input-schmitt-disable: true
>>   
>> +          drive-strength-microamp:
>> +            enum: [125, 250, 500, 1000]
>> +
>>             mediatek,drive-strength-adv:
>> +            deprecated: true
> 
> In the case of MT8365, since there's *no* devicetree using this property, *at all*,
> I think you can even just entirely remove this block, as that should not be
> considered an ABI breakage in that case.
> 
> Krzysztof, can you please confirm?

If it is defined as ABI in a released kernel, then should be rather
deprecated.

Best regards,
Krzysztof