Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Combine MediaTek MT67xx pinctrl binding docs

[yassine . oudjana]

On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 09:11:12 AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski 
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/09/2022 10:06, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> >  Il 19/09/22 19:01, Yassine Oudjana ha scritto:
> > >  From: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >  Documents for MT6779, MT6795 and MT6797 that currently exist share
> > >  most properties, and each one has slightly differently worded
> > >  descriptions for those properties. Combine all three documents into
> > >  one common document for all MT67xx SoC pin controllers, picking a 
> > > few
> > >  parts from each and accounting for differences such as items in reg
> > >  and reg-names properties. Also document the MT6765 pin controller
> > >  which currently has a driver but no DT binding documentation. It 
> > > should
> > >  be possible to also include bindings for MT8183 and MT8188, but 
> > > these
> > >  have some additional properties that might complicate things a bit,
> > >  so they are left alone for now.
> > >
> > >  Signed-off-by: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >  ---
> > >    .../pinctrl/mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml      | 207 
> > > ------------------
> > >    .../pinctrl/mediatek,mt6797-pinctrl.yaml      | 176 
> > > ---------------
> > >    ...6795.yaml => mediatek,mt67xx-pinctrl.yaml} | 181 
> > > +++++++++++----
> >
> >  Hello Yassine,
> >  nice cleanup over here!
> >
> >  There's a catch though: as far as I know, wildcards are not 
> > permitted... so you
> >  should, at this point, merge all of these in 
> > mediatek,mt6779-pinctrl.yaml instead.
> >
> >  Before jumping to that, though... Krzysztof, can you please confirm 
> > (or deny)?
>
> Wildcards are not allowed in compatibles. In filename wildcards or
> family name could work if they are really going to match the devices. 
> I
> have doubts here. 67xx is quite a lot of different devices, so I am 
> not
> sure this will cover them all.
>
> I would prefer one name (oldest SoC or lowest number).

Lowest number (and probably oldest too but not sure since mediatek 
naming conventions are a bit weird) currently documented is mt6779, but 
mt6765 gets documented in this patch and mt6735 (this one I know for 
sure is older than the rest) in a following patch, so do I just stick 
with mt6779 or do I change it in the following patches documenting 
mt6765 and mt6735?

Thanks,
Yassine

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof