linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for meson8 pwm type

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f572c729-d007-46b4-b7ac-442f96b23969@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:13:11 +0100
From:   neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        JunYi Zhao <junyi.zhao@...ogic.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for
 meson8 pwm type

On 30/11/2023 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 17:41, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
>>>>>     .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml  | 52 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>     1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> index 387976ed36d5..eece390114a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> @@ -21,23 +21,35 @@ properties:
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ee-pwm
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-ab
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-cd
>>>>> -          - amlogic,meson-s4-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-ao-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-ao-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson8-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson8b-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>
>>>> I think deprecated should be moved in a third patch
>>>
>>> The complain on v2 was that it was not clear the new binding was making
>>> the old one obsolete. It looked to me that the deprecation old bindings
>>> needed to go together with the introduction of the new.
>>>
>>> I don't mind one way or the other
>>>
>>> Is there a rule somewhere about this ?
>>
>> Not sure about that, I don't think it's a problem to have both valid
>> at the same time, setting them deprecated afterwards looks cleaner
>> to avoid mixing too much changes at the same time.
> 
> For me current order is correct and intuitive: you add new binding,
> because old binding was wrong, so the old binding should be deprecated.
> Otherwise you have a state with both new and old binding and one could
> question - why did we need new binding? For dtschema it does not matter,
> but it matters how we read the code.

Ack thx for the clarification

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks,
Neil