[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjtoLkeyYsT6Fih5@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:34:22 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
"huziji@...vell.com" <huziji@...vell.com>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
"sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com" <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
"kostap@...vell.com" <kostap@...vell.com>,
"robert.marko@...tura.hr" <robert.marko@...tura.hr>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mvebu: Document bindings
for AC5
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 01:27:48AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > I think it can. I vaguely remember seeing conditional clauses based on
> > compatible strings in other yaml bindings.
> >
> > I started a new binding document because I expected adding significant
> > additions to the existing .txt files would be rejected. If I get some
> > cycles I could look at converting the existing docs from txt to yaml.
> >
> > I'm not sure that there will be much in the way of a common
> > mvebu-pinctrl.yaml as you'd end up repeating most of the common stuff to
> > make things conditional anyway.
>
> We should wait for Rob to comment. But is suspect you are right, there
> will not be much savings.
It's always a judgement call of amount of if/then schema vs. duplicating
the common parts. If it's the function/pin parts that vary, then that's
probably best as separate schema for each case. Otherwise, I'm not sure
without seeing something.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists