lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: clock: add QCOM SM8350 display clock bindings
From
Date
Quoting Jonathan Marek (2021-06-04 10:25:41)
> On 6/2/21 5:27 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jonathan Marek (2021-05-18 17:18:02)
> >> Add sm8350 DISPCC bindings, which are simply a symlink to the sm8250
> >> bindings. Update the documentation with the new compatible.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
> >> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> >> ---
> >> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml | 6 ++++--
> >> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8350.h | 1 +
> >
> >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 120000 include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8350.h
> >
> > Why the symlink? Can we have the dt authors use the existing header file
> > instead?
> >
>
> It would be strange to include bindings with the name of a different
> SoC. I guess it is a matter a preference, is there any good reason to
> *not* do it like this?

$ find include/dt-bindings -type l
include/dt-bindings/input/linux-event-codes.h
include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8150.h

It seems to not be common at all.

>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
> >> index 0cdf53f41f84..8f414642445e 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml
> >> @@ -4,24 +4,26 @@
> >> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm8x50.yaml#
> >> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>
> >> -title: Qualcomm Display Clock & Reset Controller Binding for SM8150/SM8250
> >> +title: Qualcomm Display Clock & Reset Controller Binding for SM8150/SM8250/SM8350
> >
> > Maybe just "Binding for SM8x50 SoCs"
> >
>
> Its likely these bindings won't be compatible with future "SM8x50" SoCs,
> listing supported SoCs explicitly will avoid confusion in the future.

The yaml file has sm8x50 in the name. What's the plan there?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-28 04:40    [W:0.060 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site