lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: coresight: Add new compatible for static replicator
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:25:07AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 07:57:50AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 18:10, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:18:40PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > Hi Leo,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 04:28, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > CoreSight uses below bindings for replicator:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dynamic replicator, aka. configurable replicator:
> > > > > "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell";
> > > > >
> > > > > Static replicator, aka. non-configurable replicator:
> > > > > "arm,coresight-replicator";
> > > > >
> > > > > The compatible string "arm,coresight-replicator" is not an explicit
> > > > > naming to express the replicator is 'static'. To unify the naming
> > > > > convention, this patch introduces a new compatible string
> > > > > "arm,coresight-static-replicator" for the static replicator; the
> > > > > compatible string "arm,coresight-replicator" is kept for backward
> > > > > compatibility, but tag it as obsolete and suggest to use the new
> > > > > compatible string.
> > > > >
> > > > > As result CoreSight replicator have below bindings:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dynamic replicator:
> > > > > "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell";
> > > > >
> > > > > Static replicator:
> > > > > "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > > > > "arm,coresight-replicator"; (obsolete)
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 7 +++++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > > > index f8aff65ab921..d02d160fa8ac 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > > > @@ -69,7 +69,10 @@ its hardware characteristcs.
> > > > >
> > > > > * compatible: Currently supported value is (note the absence of the
> > > > > AMBA markee):
> > > > > - - "arm,coresight-replicator"
> > > > > + - Coresight Non-configurable Replicator:
> > > > > + "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > > > > + "arm,coresight-replicator"; (OBSOLETE. For backward
> > > > > + compatibility and will be removed)
> > > > >
> > > > > * port or ports: see "Graph bindings for Coresight" below.
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -169,7 +172,7 @@ Example:
> > > > > /* non-configurable replicators don't show up on the
> > > > > * AMBA bus. As such no need to add "arm,primecell".
> > > > > */
> > > > > - compatible = "arm,coresight-replicator";
> > > > > + compatible = "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > > > >
> > > > > out-ports {
> > > > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > >
> > > > Since this is a binding patch it needs to be sent on its own.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reminding, Mathieu.
> > >
> > > Since this is the second time you remind me to send DT binding related
> > > patches separately, so I may misunderstand your meaning and want to get
> > > clarification to avoid making the same mistake for many times.
> > >
> > > Before I remembered in one patch set we need to organise patches with
> > > sending document patch (or document changing patch) ahead and then
> > > followed by the corresponding code change patch. So this can give the
> > > reviewers more clear context; and this also can present the merging
> > > dependency between document change patches and the code change patches.
> > >
> > > This is the rule I followed in this patch set and I sent to CoreSight
> > > and DT maintainers (and mailing lists) together.
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think about this? And also welcome
> > > Rob/Mark's suggestions.
> >
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt
>
> I'm not clear on what you are asking for. Binding patches should be
> separate patch, but can and should still be in a series if there's
> relevant code changes.

The fault is mine - I reviewed Leo's patchset while seriously jet lagged and
sent him in the weeds. Apologies for the confusion.

Mathieu

>
> Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-26 17:04    [W:0.119 / U:5.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site