On 12/09/2022 15:09, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 12.09.2022 13:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/09/2022 09:45, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> On 09.09.2022 04:36, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:15:44PM +0000, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> On 08.09.2022 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 06/09/2022 15:55, Sergiu Moga wrote: >>>>>>> Add the AT91SAM9260 serial compatibles to the list of SAM9X60 compatibles >>>>>>> in order to highlight the incremental characteristics of the SAM9X60 >>>>>>> serial IP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v1 -> v2: >>>>>>> - Nothing, this patch was not here before >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml | 2 ++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>>> index b25535b7a4d2..4d80006963c7 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ properties: >>>>>>> - items: >>>>>>> - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu >>>>>>> - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart >>>>>>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu >>>>>>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart >>>>>> >>>>>> This is weird. You say in commit msg to "highlight the incremental >>>>>> characteristics" but you basically change here existing compatibles. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does "show that they are incremental IP's" sound better then? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This is not enum, but a list. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by this? I know it is a list, I specified so in the >>>>> commit message. >>>> >>>> You are saying that compatible must be exactly the 4 strings above in >>>> the order listed. You need another entry with another 'items' list. >>>> >>>> Rob >>> >>> >>> That is what was intended though: a list of the 4 compatibles in that >>> exact order. The 4th patch of this series also ensures that all 9x60 >>> nodes have that exact list of 4 compatibles. >> >> The commit msg suggest otherwise - two options, because it is >> incremental... But this one is not really incremental - you require this >> one, only one, configuration. It's in general fine, but commit msg >> should reflect what you are really intend to do here and why you are >> doing it. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > > My apologies, I still do not understand what is wrong with the commit > message. My intention was to ensure that every 9x60 usart compatible is > followed by the 9260 compatibles because the 9x60 serial IP is an > improvement over the 9260 one. Would you prefer it to be just the first > part of the commit message: `Add the AT91SAM9260 serial compatibles to > the list of SAM9X60 compatibles`? That way it would really only be what > the commit does. Let me rephrase it: What your commit is doing is requiring additional fallback compatibles. Therefore the commit msg should answer - why do you require additional fallback compatibles? Incremental characteristics sound to me optional. I can increment sam9x60 with something or I can skip it. But you are not doing it... sam9x60 was already there and now you require a fallback. Best regards, Krzysztof
