Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: SPI: Add Ingenic SFC bindings.

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/07/2022 20:47, Mike Yang wrote:
> On 7/24/22 01:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote:
>>>>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC,
>>>>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml       | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>>>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>> +---
>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml#
>>>> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so
>>>> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml
>>>
>>>
>>> No offense, does it really need to be named that way?
>>> I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :(
>>>
>>> The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation
>>> for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into
>>> thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many
>>> other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml,
>>> spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml,
>>> omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first
>>> compatible are also for the same consideration. :)
>>
>> We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an
>> argument to add one more bad pattern.
> 
> Zhou already mentioned he was unable find the naming guidelines of these .yaml files.
> 
> Apparently you think it's unacceptable for new contributors of a certain subsystem to use existing code as examples, and/or they're responsible for figuring out what's a good example and what's a bad one in the existing codebase.

It's everywhere in the kernel, what can I say? If you copy existing
code, you might copy poor code...

> 
>>
>> It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so
>> that is not really an argument.
> 
> It is an argument. A very valid one.
> 
> "they *might* be different". You may want to get your hands on real hardware and try another word. Or at least read the datasheets instead of believing your imagination.
> 
> I would enjoy duplicating the st,stm32-spi.yaml into st,stm32{f,h}{0..7}-spi.yaml if I'm bored at a Sunday afternoon.
> 
>>
>> All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you
>> think it is an exception for you?
> 
> Zhou didn't ask you to make an exception. They have a valid point and they're asking why.

Hm, everyone has the same valid point and such recommendation is to
everyone, although it is nothing serious.

> You may want to avoid further incidents of this kind by stop being bossy and actually writing a guideline of naming these .yaml files and publish it somewhere online.

I did not see any incident here... Process of review includes comments
and there is nothing bad happening when you receive a comment. No
incident...

Best regards,
Krzysztof