On 02/03/2023 10:17, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > On 2.03.2023 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 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... > > Let me put them in a group to better explain. > > ## Fix ABI > > ralink,rt2880-pinmux was there before, it was removed which broke the > ABI. I'm reintroducing it to fix it. > > ## New strings to be able to split bindings > > New strings are needed for MT7628/MT7688 and some RT SoCs to be able to > properly document the pin muxing information. Then ok. > > ## Incorrect naming > > MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and MT7688 SoCs are incorrectly called Ralink, > introduce new ralink->mediatek compatible strings to address it. So this part was addressed by Rob - we don't do it, because it does not matter. Ralink is now Mediatek, thus there is no conflict and no issues with different vendor used. > > ## Exception for RT SoCs to be called MediaTek > > This is where I was asking an exception to be made. Rob told us here > they know little about the platform so I explained it. > > MediaTek acquired Ralink and then introduced new MediaTek SoCs utilising > the same platform from Ralink. > > Anyway, now that I look at this again, it makes sense to me as well not > to rename the Ralink SoCs. I'll call the RT SoCs Ralink on the kconfig, > pinctrl driver, These are separate. We did not comment on how you call Linux drivers. The mail thread was only about: > and dt-binding schemas on my next version. Best regards, Krzysztof
