On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 13:00 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/10/2022 12:13, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote: > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc- > > > > child.yaml > > > > index 6e3995bb1630..477189973334 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml > > > > @@ -230,6 +230,13 @@ properties: > > > > Wait-pin used by client. Must be less than "gpmc,num-waitpins". > > > > $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > > > > > > > + gpmc,wait-pin-polarity: > > > > > > 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'. > > > > You are right. But nevertheless I can't agree with that in this patch series. > > I don't want to break consistency, since all bindings currently use 'gpmc'. At least this applies > > to the "ti,gpmc-child.yaml". > > > > I think it makes more sense to create a complete new patch series for that specific change? This change > > wouldn't fit thematically the current patch series. > > > > So you want to add new property incorrectly named and immediately new > patch which fixes the name? No, please squash this new patch into this. > No that's not what I meant. Currently all bindings in "ti,gpmc-child.yaml" start with "gpmc," and introducing a single binding in this file with "ti," feels like breaking consistency. The "new" patch series should address **all** bindings in this file and all device trees currently using "gpmc," bindings. So finally we have the current patch series introducing the wait pin handling in a consisten way and then another patch series which changes all "gpmc," to "ti,". If it makes more sense to directly introduce the "ti,wait-pin-polarity" instead of "gpmc,wait-pin-polarity" then I will do. Just give me a short feedback. > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Cheers, Benedikt
