[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07155116-2027-2916-5a39-e4dff8298b27@socionext.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:14:35 +0900
From: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: phy: Fix UniPhier SATA controller node
names in example
On 2022/11/02 4:31, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 4:10 AM Kunihiko Hayashi
> <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 2022/10/29 4:38, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:49:20PM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>>>> The word "glue" is ambiguous for the controller node name. Should put
>>>> "sata-controller" instead of "ahci-glue" on the controller node.
>>>> And rename a phy node to "sata-phy".
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/socionext,uniphier-ahci-phy.yaml | 4
>>>> ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/socionext,uniphier-ahci-phy.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/socionext,uniphier-ahci-phy.yaml
>>>> index a3cd45acea28..89b8b133777a 100644
>>>> ---
>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/socionext,uniphier-ahci-phy.
>>> yaml
>>>> +++
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/socionext,uniphier-ahci-phy.
>>> yaml
>>>> @@ -117,14 +117,14 @@ additionalProperties: false
>>>>
>>>> examples:
>>>> - |
>>>> - ahci-glue@...00000 {
>>>> + sata-controller@...00000 {
>>>
>>> But is this really the SATA controller aka AHCI?
>>>
>>> In cases where we don't have a standardized name, I don't think it makes
>>> sense changing node names from one non-standard name to another.
>>
>> I see. This can't be named generic, so this change will drop.
>> And "sata-phy" in the same way.
>
> I think sata-phy is fine. It may not be added, but usb3-phy or
> pcie-phy are common already.
I understand. But of cource "phy" is also common, so I defer the change
from "phy" to "sata-phy".
Thank you,
---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists