[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f1becb9-56e9-4b71-b9ca-263dd6592c43@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:08:11 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: watchdog: ti,davinci-wdt: convert to
dtschema
On 22/07/2024 16:02, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/07/2024 15:12, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21/07/2024 18:28, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - ti,davinci-wdt
>>>>> + - ti,keystone-wdt
>>>>
>>>> This does not match the original binding and commit msg did not explain
>>>> why such change is necessary.
>>>
>>> I don't understand. Do you mean both the compatibles are always
>>> compulsory? Meaning
>>>
>>> compatible:
>>> items:
>>> - const: ti,davinci-wdt
>>> - const: ti,keystone-wdt
>>
>> Yes, this is what old binding said.
>
> That was what I thought initially too, but the example in the old
> binding says otherwise and also the DTS from ti/davinci/da850.dtsi
> says
>
> wdt: watchdog@...00 {
> compatible = "ti,davinci-wdt";
> reg = <0x21000 0x1000>;
> clocks = <&pll0_auxclk>;
> status = "disabled";
> };
>
> Or am I seeing it the wrong way?
>
>>>
>>> It is enum because I intended it to align with the subsequent patch
>>> which changes DTS.
>>>
>>>> This also does not match DTS.
>>>
>>> Yes. I've asked about changing the DTS in the subsequent patch.
>>>
>>
>> Changing the DTS cannot be the reason to affect users and DTS... It's
>> tautology. You change DTS because you intent to change DTS?
>
> Not exactly. I thought that the DTS was wrong when it said
>
> compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt", "ti,davinci-wdt";
>
> while it should have been
>
> compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt";
>
> I was not sure about this though and hence marked both the patches as
> RFC, in case I was interpretting them the wrong way.
Ah, right, the DTS says keystone+davinci while old binding suggested
davinci+keystone. Considering there is no driver binding to keystone, I
think the answer is obvious - intention was keystone+davinci. Anyway,
commit msg should mention why you are doing something else than pure
conversion.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists