Hi Morimoto-san,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 4:49 AM Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > LGTM, but as the suffixes become part of the DT ABI when defining
> > > pin groups, we should get the conflicts resolved, and this cannot
> > > be applied as-is.
> >
> > It seems HW team / Doc team are now fixuping suffixes.
> > I think I need to use new Doc for v4.
>
> We don't know when new Doc comming,
> and I don't think there is someone who will get DT naming exchange issue for now
> (Because no uses).
>
> So, I'm happy if you can accept my next v4 patch-set (suffix is still using _X).
> and I'm happy to post new incremental patch which is for
> "update PFC to adjust to latest Datasheet" in such case.
My worry is not about the group of pins marked _X, but about its
siblings without _X. E.g. your patches have SCIF1 and SCIF1_X,
but we do not know yet if SCIF1 should be renamed, too.
I agree it is unlikely to become an issue with TCLK soon, but (H)SCIF1
are more likely to become enabled, also on real products.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
