Re: [PATCH v8 05/10] dt-bindings: sc16is7xx: Add property to change GPIO function

[Hugo Villeneuve]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 16:57:48 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 07/06/2023 16:52, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 16:46:56 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 07/06/2023 16:41, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 16:30:26 +0200
> >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 07/06/2023 16:05, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> >>>>> From: Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some variants in this series of UART controllers have GPIO pins that
> >>>>> are shared between GPIO and modem control lines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The pin mux mode (GPIO or modem control lines) can be set for each
> >>>>> ports (channels) supported by the variant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This adds a property to the device tree to set the GPIO pin mux to
> >>>>> modem control lines on selected ports if needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.1.x
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Lech Perczak <lech.perczak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  .../bindings/serial/nxp,sc16is7xx.txt         | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/nxp,sc16is7xx.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/nxp,sc16is7xx.txt
> >>>>> index 0fa8e3e43bf8..1a7e4bff0456 100644
> >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/nxp,sc16is7xx.txt
> >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/nxp,sc16is7xx.txt
> >>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ Optional properties:
> >>>>>      1 = active low.
> >>>>>  - irda-mode-ports: An array that lists the indices of the port that
> >>>>>  		   should operate in IrDA mode.
> >>>>> +- nxp,modem-control-line-ports: An array that lists the indices of the port that
> >>>>> +				should have shared GPIO lines configured as
> >>>>> +				modem control lines.
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  Example:
> >>>>>          sc16is750: sc16is750@51 {
> >>>>> @@ -35,6 +38,26 @@ Example:
> >>>>>                  #gpio-cells = <2>;
> >>>>>          };
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> +	sc16is752: sc16is752@53 {
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you keep sending new versions, fix the names. nNode names should
> >>>> be generic. See also explanation and list of examples in DT specification:
> >>>> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> by the way, I do not "keep sending new versions" just for the fun of
> >>> it...
> >>
> >> Sure, I know. So when the next version is necessary to send, fix also this.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Even after reading your link, I cannot see what is wrong with that
> >>> name.
> >>
> >> They are not generic. They are specific.
> > 
> > What do you mean by "They"? My patch adds only a new property...
> 
> Your patch adds multiple new examples. My comment was at appropriate
> place to fix, although only the first place. I did not refer to
> unrelated pieces or other parts of the code. Specifically - I wrote
> nothing about property.

Ahhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, now I see.

But I simply added new examples based on the previous examples, which
already used "inappropriate" names.

If I modify only the node names in my new examples, this will clash
with the existing examples.

I have already prepared a new patch, that I will send one day if we can
ever finish this never ending series, to convert the binding to YAML,
and to fix a few things with old properties missing vendor prefix,
etc.

I will modify all the examples in this new series to follow what you
suggest and incorporate it into this new serie.

Hugo.


> > This patch will not fix old names, but a future patch could do it.
> 
> No worries, I asked for new code.
> 
> > 
> > And what do you mean by "They are not generic. They are specific". Of
> > course the property is specific, because it relates to something very
> > specific to this chip?
> 
> Again, I did not comment under a property. I did not refer to any property.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof