Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:30:34 +0300 | From | yassine.oudjana@gmail ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Combine MediaTek MT67xx pinctrl binding docs |
| |
On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 09:11:12 AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > On 20/09/2022 10:06, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >> Il 19/09/22 19:01, Yassine Oudjana ha scritto: >>> From: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@protonmail.com> >>> >>> Documents for MT6779, MT6795 and MT6797 that currently exist share >>> most properties, and each one has slightly differently worded >>> descriptions for those properties. Combine all three documents into >>> one common document for all MT67xx SoC pin controllers, picking a >>> few >>> parts from each and accounting for differences such as items in reg >>> and reg-names properties. Also document the MT6765 pin controller >>> which currently has a driver but no DT binding documentation. It >>> should >>> be possible to also include bindings for MT8183 and MT8188, but >>> these >>> have some additional properties that might complicate things a bit, >>> so they are left alone for now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@protonmail.com> >>> --- >>> .../pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml | 207 >>> ------------------ >>> .../pinctrl/mediatek,mt6797-pinctrl.yaml | 176 >>> --------------- >>> ...6795.yaml => mediatek,mt67xx-pinctrl.yaml} | 181 >>> +++++++++++---- >> >> Hello Yassine, >> nice cleanup over here! >> >> There's a catch though: as far as I know, wildcards are not >> permitted... so you >> should, at this point, merge all of these in >> mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml instead. >> >> Before jumping to that, though... Krzysztof, can you please confirm >> (or deny)? > > Wildcards are not allowed in compatibles. In filename wildcards or > family name could work if they are really going to match the devices. > I > have doubts here. 67xx is quite a lot of different devices, so I am > not > sure this will cover them all. > > I would prefer one name (oldest SoC or lowest number).
Lowest number (and probably oldest too but not sure since mediatek naming conventions are a bit weird) currently documented is mt6779, but mt6765 gets documented in this patch and mt6735 (this one I know for sure is older than the rest) in a following patch, so do I just stick with mt6779 or do I change it in the following patches documenting mt6765 and mt6735?
Thanks, Yassine
> > Best regards, > Krzysztof
| |