Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: watchdog: ti,davinci-wdt: convert to dtschema

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 22/07/2024 16:02, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:50:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/07/2024 15:12, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:15:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21/07/2024 18:28, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote:
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - ti,davinci-wdt
>>>>> +      - ti,keystone-wdt
>>>>
>>>> This does not match the original binding and commit msg did not explain
>>>> why such change is necessary.
>>>
>>> I don't understand.  Do you mean both the compatibles are always
>>> compulsory?  Meaning
>>>
>>> 	compatible:
>>> 	  items:
>>> 	    - const: ti,davinci-wdt
>>> 	    - const: ti,keystone-wdt
>>
>> Yes, this is what old binding said.
> 
> That was what I thought initially too, but the example in the old
> binding says otherwise and also the DTS from ti/davinci/da850.dtsi
> says
> 
> 	wdt: watchdog@21000 {
> 		compatible = "ti,davinci-wdt";
> 		reg = <0x21000 0x1000>;
> 		clocks = <&pll0_auxclk>;
> 		status = "disabled";
> 	};
> 
> Or am I seeing it the wrong way?
> 
>>>
>>> It is enum because I intended it to align with the subsequent patch
>>> which changes DTS.
>>>
>>>> This also does not match DTS.
>>>
>>> Yes.  I've asked about changing the DTS in the subsequent patch.
>>>
>>
>> Changing the DTS cannot be the reason to affect users and DTS... It's
>> tautology. You change DTS because you intent to change DTS?
> 
> Not exactly.  I thought that the DTS was wrong when it said
> 
> 	compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt", "ti,davinci-wdt";
> 
> while it should have been
> 
> 	compatible = "ti,keystone-wdt";
> 
> I was not sure about this though and hence marked both the patches as
> RFC, in case I was interpretting them the wrong way.

Ah, right, the DTS says keystone+davinci while old binding suggested
davinci+keystone. Considering there is no driver binding to keystone, I
think the answer is obvious - intention was keystone+davinci. Anyway,
commit msg should mention why you are doing something else than pure
conversion.

Best regards,
Krzysztof