Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:37:25 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/14] dt-bindings: pinctrl: rt2880: fix binding name, pin groups and functions | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 14/04/2022 19:17, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:34:31AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >> On 13/04/2022 18:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 13/04/2022 08:07, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >>>> Change binding name from ralink,rt2880-pinmux to ralink,rt2880-pinctrl. >>>> This is the binding for the Ralink RT2880 pinctrl subdriver. >>> >>> What I don't see here is why you are doing this. pinmux/pinctrl have the >>> same meaning, I guess? >> >> What I understand is pinmux is rather a specific term for the muxing of pins >> or pin groups. Pinctrl is what we prefer here since the term is more >> inclusive of what the subdriver does: controlling pins. Any mediatek >> driver/subdriver is called pinctrl so I'm not doing something uncommon. > > The correct name is really whatever the h/w block is called, not > whatever we've come up with for some class of devices. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Current pin group and function bindings are for MT7621. Put bindings for >>>> RT2880 instead. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >>>> --- >>>> ...pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} | 24 +++++++++---------- >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>> rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/{ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} (56%) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml >>>> similarity index 56% >>>> rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml >>>> rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml >>>> index 9de8b0c075e2..c657bbf9fdda 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml >>>> @@ -1,21 +1,23 @@ >>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause >>>> %YAML 1.2 >>>> --- >>>> -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml# >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml# >>>> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>> -title: Ralink rt2880 pinmux controller >>>> +title: Ralink RT2880 Pin Controller >>>> maintainers: >>>> + - Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >>> >>> Mention this in commit msg. >> >> Will do. >> >>> >>>> - Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> >>>> description: >>>> - The rt2880 pinmux can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins >>>> + Ralink RT2880 pin controller for RT2880 SoC. >>>> + The pin controller can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins >>>> is not supported. There is no pinconf support. >>>> properties: >>>> compatible: >>>> - const: ralink,rt2880-pinmux >>>> + const: ralink,rt2880-pinctrl >>> >>> you need to deprecate old property and add a new one. >> >> Do we really have to? That property name was inaccurate from the start. I >> don't see a reason to keep it being referred to on the binding. > > It's an ABI. There are exceptions, but you've got to spell out the > reasoning in the commit message.
Oh, I thought by deprecating, I was supposed to keep the old one on the YAML binding. I'll properly explain the reason in the commit message.
> > Really, who cares. It's just a unique identifier. Unless you also had a > h/w block called 'pinmux' in addition to a 'pinctrl' block it doesn't > matter. We could use just GUIDs instead.
Understood, thanks Rob!
Arınç
| |