[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11d3c806-04b6-da54-65f1-c0bd154affbc@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:28:21 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>,
William Dean <williamsukatube@...il.com>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>,
Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/16] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: add new
compatible strings
On 01/03/2023 09:15, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 1.03.2023 05:44, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 07:46:36PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2023 20:33, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:39:23PM +0300, arinc9.unal@...il.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the ralink,rt2880-pinmux compatible string. It had been removed from
>>>>> the driver which broke the ABI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the mediatek compatible strings. Change the compatible string on the
>>>>> examples with the mediatek compatible strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7621-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt305x-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt3883-pinctrl.yaml | 7 +++++--
>>>>> 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> index 1e63ea34146a..531b5f616c3d 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,mt7620-pinctrl.yaml
>>>>> @@ -17,7 +17,10 @@ description:
>>>>> properties:
>>>>> compatible:
>>>>> - const: ralink,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>> + - ralink,mt7620-pinctrl
>>>>
>>>> We don't update compatible strings based on acquistions nor marketing
>>>> whims. If you want to use 'mediatek' for new things, then fine.
>>>
>>> Understood. Only the SoCs with rtXXXX were rebranded, the mtXXXX SoCs share
>>> the same architecture from Ralink, so they were incorrectly called Ralink
>>> SoCs.
>>>
>>> I can remove the new strings from Ralink SoCs and add them only for MediaTek
>>> SoCs. Or you could make an exception for this one, regarding the situation.
>>> Whatever you think is best.
>>
>> I'm not in a position to make an exception as I know little about this
>> platform. Carrying both strings is a NAK. Either you (and everyone using
>> these platforms) care about the ABI and are stuck with the "wrong"
>> string. In the end, they are just unique identifiers. Or you don't care
>> and break the ABI and rename everything. If you do that, do just that in
>> your patches and make it crystal clear in the commit msg that is your
>> intention and why that is okay.
>
> Ralink had their MIPS SoCs pre-acquisition, RT2880, etc. MediaTek
> introduced new SoCs post-acquisition, MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and
> MT7688, utilising the same platform from Ralink, sharing the same
> architecture code, pinctrl core driver, etc.
>
> I don't intend to break the ABI at all. On the contrary, I fix it where
> possible.
>
> If I understand correctly, from this conversation and what Krzysztof
> said, all strings must be kept on the schemas so I can do what I said on
> the composed mail. Only match the pin muxing information on the strings
> that won't match multiple pin muxing information from other schemas.
>
> This way we don't break the ABI, introduce new compatible strings while
> keeping the remaining ones, and make schemas match correctly.
>
> Let me know if this is acceptable to you.
If by "introduce new compatible strings" you mean duplicate compatibles
to fix the ralink->mediatek, then you ignored entire email from Rob -
this and previous. We don't do this. Leave them as is.
If you meant something else, explain more...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists