Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for meson8 pwm type

[neil . armstrong]

On 30/11/2023 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 17:41, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > >     .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml  | 52 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > > >     1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
> > > > > index 387976ed36d5..eece390114a3 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
> > > > > @@ -21,23 +21,35 @@ properties:
> > > > >               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ee-pwm
> > > > >               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-ab
> > > > >               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-cd
> > > > > -          - amlogic,meson-s4-pwm
> > > > > +        deprecated: true
> > > > >           - items:
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-pwm
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-pwm
> > > > > +        deprecated: true
> > > > >           - items:
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-ao-pwm
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-ao-pwm
> > > > > +        deprecated: true
> > > > >           - items:
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson8-pwm
> > > > >               - const: amlogic,meson8b-pwm
> > > > > +        deprecated: true
> > > >
> > > > I think deprecated should be moved in a third patch
> > >
> > > The complain on v2 was that it was not clear the new binding was making
> > > the old one obsolete. It looked to me that the deprecation old bindings
> > > needed to go together with the introduction of the new.
> > >
> > > I don't mind one way or the other
> > >
> > > Is there a rule somewhere about this ?
> >
> > Not sure about that, I don't think it's a problem to have both valid
> > at the same time, setting them deprecated afterwards looks cleaner
> > to avoid mixing too much changes at the same time.
>
> For me current order is correct and intuitive: you add new binding,
> because old binding was wrong, so the old binding should be deprecated.
> Otherwise you have a state with both new and old binding and one could
> question - why did we need new binding? For dtschema it does not matter,
> but it matters how we read the code.

Ack thx for the clarification

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Thanks,
Neil