lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-21 11:32    [W:0.046 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site