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

[yassine.oudjana@gmail.com]

On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 09:11:12 AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski 
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> 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@protonmail.com>
>>> 
>>>  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@protonmail.com>
>>>  ---
>>>    .../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