[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bf1d7b3e-c542-fbe1-d904-e11f1d1d5ec2@microchip.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:35:27 +0000
From: <Sergiu.Moga@...rochip.com>
To: <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <lee@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
<Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>, <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
<radu_nicolae.pirea@....ro>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<broonie@...nel.org>, <mturquette@...libre.com>,
<sboyd@...nel.org>, <jirislaby@...nel.org>, <admin@...iphile.com>,
<Kavyasree.Kotagiri@...rochip.com>, <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] dt-bindings: serial: atmel,at91-usart: Add
SAM9260 compatibles to SAM9x60
On 13.09.2022 12:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/09/2022 11:19, Sergiu.Moga@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The additional fallback compatibles are required because the driver in
>> question only knows about the atmel,at91sam9260-usart compatible.
>> Furthermore, it is also a better representation of the fact that the
>> serial IP of 9x60 is an improvement over the serial IP of 9260 (it
>> contains more hardware features not yet implemented in the driver).
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> So, what is your opinion on the following commit message:
>>
>> "Fix sam9x60 compatible list by adding the sam9260 compatibles as
>> fallback, since the atmel_serial driver only knows of the latter's
>> compatible. The atmel_serial driver only has knowledge of the sam9260
>> compatible because it does not have the sam9x60's serial IP specific
>> features implemented yet and adding an empty compatible without adding
>> support specific to that compatible would be misleading. Thus prefer the
>> fallback mechanism in the detriment of adding an empty compatible in the
>> driver."
>
> It's fine. Also could work:
>
> "Require sam9260 fallback compatible for sam9x60, because sam9x60 is
> fully compatible with sam9260 and Linux driver requires the latter."
>
This version looks better indeed. Sums it all up and is only 2 lines :).
Thank you very much for the suggestion it is greatly appeciated.
> If it fixes any observable issue like lack of driver binding to DTS, you
> can also mention that.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Thanks,
Sergiu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists