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
