Re: [PATCH 10/14] dt-bindings: pinctrl: rt2880: fix binding name, pin groups and functions

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 14/04/2022 19:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:34:31AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > On 13/04/2022 18:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 13/04/2022 08:07, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > > Change binding name from ralink,rt2880-pinmux to ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.
> > > > This is the binding for the Ralink RT2880 pinctrl subdriver.
> > >
> > > What I don't see here is why you are doing this. pinmux/pinctrl have the
> > > same meaning, I guess?
> >
> > What I understand is pinmux is rather a specific term for the muxing of pins
> > or pin groups. Pinctrl is what we prefer here since the term is more
> > inclusive of what the subdriver does: controlling pins. Any mediatek
> > driver/subdriver is called pinctrl so I'm not doing something uncommon.
>
> The correct name is really whatever the h/w block is called, not
> whatever we've come up with for some class of devices.
>
> > > > Current pin group and function bindings are for MT7621. Put bindings for
> > > > RT2880 instead.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    ...pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} | 24 +++++++++----------
> > > >    1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >    rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/{ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} (56%)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
> > > > similarity index 56%
> > > > rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml
> > > > rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
> > > > index 9de8b0c075e2..c657bbf9fdda 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
> > > > @@ -1,21 +1,23 @@
> > > >    # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> > > >    %YAML 1.2
> > > >    ---
> > > > -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml#
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml#
> > > >    $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > -title: Ralink rt2880 pinmux controller
> > > > +title: Ralink RT2880 Pin Controller
> > > >    maintainers:
> > > > +  - Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Mention this in commit msg.
> >
> > Will do.
> >
> > > >      - Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >    description:
> > > > -  The rt2880 pinmux can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins
> > > > +  Ralink RT2880 pin controller for RT2880 SoC.
> > > > +  The pin controller can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins
> > > >      is not supported. There is no pinconf support.
> > > >    properties:
> > > >      compatible:
> > > > -    const: ralink,rt2880-pinmux
> > > > +    const: ralink,rt2880-pinctrl
> > >
> > > you need to deprecate old property and add a new one.
> >
> > Do we really have to? That property name was inaccurate from the start. I
> > don't see a reason to keep it being referred to on the binding.
>
> It's an ABI. There are exceptions, but you've got to spell out the
> reasoning in the commit message.

Oh, I thought by deprecating, I was supposed to keep the old one on the 
YAML binding. I'll properly explain the reason in the commit message.

> Really, who cares. It's just a unique identifier. Unless you also had a
> h/w block called 'pinmux' in addition to a 'pinctrl' block it doesn't
> matter. We could use just GUIDs instead.

Understood, thanks Rob!

Arınç