Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: rename spi0 pins on IPQ5424

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 30/12/2024 08:50, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/27/2024 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
>>>>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename
>>>>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <form letter>
>>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>>>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions
>>>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed
>>>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is
>>>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing
>>>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost
>>>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for
>>>> tags received on the version they apply.
>>>>
>>>> Please read:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
>>>>
>>>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
>>>> </form letter>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> 	Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b
>>> 	tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter.
>>> 	
>>> 	I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series.
>>> 	Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next.
>>> 	[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>>> 	[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> 	Please let me know if i missed anything.
>>
>> v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset.
>>
>> Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI
>> impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are
>> not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where
>> is spi3?
>>
>> Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering
>> not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?).
>>
>>
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> 	The IPQ5424 supports two SPI instances on serial engine 4 and 5.
> 	Previously, SPI clocks, gpio pins and DTS node names were named
> 	according to protocol instances like spi0 and spi1.
> 
> 	As per the feedback received in
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ca0ecc07-fd45-4116-9927-8eb3e737505f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/,
> 	spi0 has been renamed to spi4 to align with the serial engine instance.
> 
> 	Kindly advice if it's not acceptable.

The advice was not about pins, though. My comments stands for commit
msg. Nothing about ABI, nothing about datasheet...

Best regards,
Krzysztof