From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1ADC433E2 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAD521734 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="qrL5Uq9i" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727032AbgIQMvk (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:51:40 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:47590 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727080AbgIQMv2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 08:51:28 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08HCp58F051343; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1600347065; bh=h1+j6WmExINKlQygCh7j0c5ayp42nqCQ1rs/Cq/b8uU=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=qrL5Uq9ifDK0pkNIIsIzSFOlAXxjP1ST9zzxe/KHVEj5Vf0vUsGNo5MKBG6GT7onC 0AzHa7hOpmByLmNOJe7kRkQhtrC/ghJ4GgWcgBmn6li6PkoF27WNN8HCOrKRcnTfA3 hWM+kLwL3JBNR4BMUxRls9n4eIxWpiDmlz2lOUGc= Received: from DLEE109.ent.ti.com (dlee109.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.41]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08HCp51O012763 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:05 -0500 Received: from DLEE104.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.34) by DLEE109.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:05 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DLEE104.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08HCp54b041373; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:51:04 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon To: Peter Rosin CC: Roger Quadros , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: mux-j7200-wiz: Add lane function defines Message-ID: <20200917125104.xznpg2fhv5iilbtl@akan> References: <20200915112038.30219-1-rogerq@ti.com> <20200915112038.30219-2-rogerq@ti.com> <20200916154536.m552ft2jzfsaeokr@akan> <08c84d02-abe1-8399-50fb-9268c7130f8a@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 14:37-20200917, Peter Rosin wrote: [...] > >>> Should not the defines start with J7200_WIZ? SERDES0 seems like a too > >>> generic prefix, at least to me. > >> > >> Thanks, good point. I am not sure if WIZ should even be used.. It is > >> a TI internal prefix for various serdes solutions, but I agree that > >> SERDES0 is too generic a terminology. That said, we should cleanup > >> include/dt-bindings/mux/mux-j721e-wiz.h as well, prior to introducing > >> j7200 changes. > >> > > > > I'm planning to put all TI SERDES definitions in one header file "ti-serdes-mux.h" > > and add SOC specific prefixes to the macros. > > > > This will mean some churn in the existing DT files. (only 2 so far) > > > > Are you guys OK if I do the change in one patch to avoid a broken build in between. > > You guys can then decide whose tree it goes through. > > > > The new SoC addition will be separate of course. > > We should get these changes done before 5.9 is released. OK. > Not breaking the build for each intermediate step is always a priority. > Also, renaming mux-j721e-wiz.h to ti-serdes-mux.h and renaming the macros > could be seen as orthogonal, and it is certainly possible to do that > as two patches without breaking the build in between. It would just need > changes on both sides of the interface in both patches. But I wouldn't > worry about separating this into two patches, just do a rename patch and > be done with it. Then follow up with additions for j7200. > > However, now that we are renaming things anyway, do we really need "mux" > in the name of the file itself? > I personally find .../dt-dbindings/mux/ti-serdes.h descriptive enough. yep, OK with me. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D