On 20/03/2023 19:23, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > On 20.03.2023 21:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/03/2023 19:07, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >>> On 20.03.2023 21:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/03/2023 17:18, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + items: >>>>> + - enum: >>>>> + - ralink,rt2880-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,rt3050-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,rt3052-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,rt3352-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,rt3883-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,rt5350-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,mt7620-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,mt7620a-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,mt7628-sysc >>>>> + - ralink,mt7688-sysc >>>> >>>> One more comment - this and maybe other compatibles - have wrong vendor >>>> prefix. This is mediatek, not ralink. >>> >>> This platform was acquired from Ralink by MediaTek. I couldn't change >>> some existing ralink compatible strings to mediatek as Rob explained on >>> my pinctrl patch series that we don't do that. The compatible strings on >>> this patch series here are new but I'd rather keep the compatible >>> strings ralink to keep things consistent. >> >> The comment that you cannot change existing compatibles does not apply >> to these, because these are new. However indeed some SoCs have already >> compatibles with ralink, so it's fine for these. mt7620 and mt7628 are >> already used with mediatek, so these should be rather corrected to new >> prefix. > > If you're talking about the pinctrl schemas for MT7620 and MT7628, it's > just the name of the yaml files that have mediatek. The compatible > string is still ralink so it should be kept ralink here as well. No, I am talking about compatibles. Best regards, Krzysztof
