On 23/07/2022 20:47, Mike Yang wrote: > On 7/24/22 01:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote: >>>>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC, >>>>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ >>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>>> +--- >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml# >>>> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so >>>> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml >>> >>> >>> No offense, does it really need to be named that way? >>> I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :( >>> >>> The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation >>> for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into >>> thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many >>> other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml, >>> spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml, >>> omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first >>> compatible are also for the same consideration. :) >> >> We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an >> argument to add one more bad pattern. > > Zhou already mentioned he was unable find the naming guidelines of these .yaml files. > > Apparently you think it's unacceptable for new contributors of a certain subsystem to use existing code as examples, and/or they're responsible for figuring out what's a good example and what's a bad one in the existing codebase. It's everywhere in the kernel, what can I say? If you copy existing code, you might copy poor code... > >> >> It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so >> that is not really an argument. > > It is an argument. A very valid one. > > "they *might* be different". You may want to get your hands on real hardware and try another word. Or at least read the datasheets instead of believing your imagination. > > I would enjoy duplicating the st,stm32-spi.yaml into st,stm32{f,h}{0..7}-spi.yaml if I'm bored at a Sunday afternoon. > >> >> All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you >> think it is an exception for you? > > Zhou didn't ask you to make an exception. They have a valid point and they're asking why. Hm, everyone has the same valid point and such recommendation is to everyone, although it is nothing serious. > You may want to avoid further incidents of this kind by stop being bossy and actually writing a guideline of naming these .yaml files and publish it somewhere online. I did not see any incident here... Process of review includes comments and there is nothing bad happening when you receive a comment. No incident... Best regards, Krzysztof
