Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Mar 2023 13:22:19 +0300 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 07/16] dt-bindings: pinctrl: ralink: add new compatible strings | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 2.03.2023 12:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/03/2023 10:17, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >> On 2.03.2023 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> 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@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.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@arinc9.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... >> >> Let me put them in a group to better explain. >> >> ## Fix ABI >> >> ralink,rt2880-pinmux was there before, it was removed which broke the >> ABI. I'm reintroducing it to fix it. >> >> ## New strings to be able to split bindings >> >> New strings are needed for MT7628/MT7688 and some RT SoCs to be able to >> properly document the pin muxing information. > > Then ok. > >> >> ## Incorrect naming >> >> MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, and MT7688 SoCs are incorrectly called Ralink, >> introduce new ralink->mediatek compatible strings to address it. > > So this part was addressed by Rob - we don't do it, because it does not > matter. Ralink is now Mediatek, thus there is no conflict and no issues > with different vendor used.
I think Rob was rather addressing that updating compatible strings based on acquisition or marketing whims is not permitted. This condition does not apply here as these SoCs were never Ralink.
I understand your point that Ralink is now MediaTek but still, calling these SoCs Ralink would be a bit misleading, don't you think?
> >> >> ## Exception for RT SoCs to be called MediaTek >> >> This is where I was asking an exception to be made. Rob told us here >> they know little about the platform so I explained it. >> >> MediaTek acquired Ralink and then introduced new MediaTek SoCs utilising >> the same platform from Ralink. >> >> Anyway, now that I look at this again, it makes sense to me as well not >> to rename the Ralink SoCs. I'll call the RT SoCs Ralink on the kconfig, >> pinctrl driver, > > These are separate. We did not comment on how you call Linux drivers. > The mail thread was only about: > >> and dt-binding schemas on my next version.
Understood, thanks.
Arınç
| |