RE: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings

[Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie]

Resend the reply.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:52 PM
> To: Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie
> <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: kishon@xxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; Shevchenko, Andriy
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>; eswara.kota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi
> Bai <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC
> PHY bindings
> 
> On 01-09-20, 04:58, Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:
> 
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> > > phy.yaml#"
> > > > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#";
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Intel Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings
> > >
> > > This seems same as
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-emmc-phy.yaml,
> why
> > > not add a new compatible in lgm binding, or did I miss a difference?
> >
> > AFAIK, LGM make use of syscon node, whilst KMB does not.
> > And LGM and KMB belongs to different SoC family. So, I prefer them to
> > be in separate file.
> >
> > Having said that, with few changes in wordings in title and
> > description, I think we can make it generic and can be used across few
> products.
> 
> The bindings seems quite similar. We can have two drivers loaded using two
> compatible but binding description can be made same

Noted. I can make the change i.e. add Keem Bay compatible string in lgm
binding document and drop Keem Bay binding document.

Rob and Vadivel, is there any objection? If not, I will proceed with v9 in the
next one or two days.

> 
> --
> ~Vinod