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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C36C433EF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:00:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236649AbhKVWD3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:03:29 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36136 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232667AbhKVWD2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:03:28 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98642C061574; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d11so6858375ljg.8; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:00:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:to:cc:references :from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ch6i7ZTbtYuB1NsvUbp8i0GzVOlf28nOvYrYtHgEz0c=; b=bmNftXfE9u08yZgbzOjzc1qwh7CNRWoxzLJ/yLbuwR9/SToq9y58BKEwHK64NDugyQ 7BVWQQ6UFF08QYHT80ca9HVQYG+hxx4pOKza3tJPmIFQkGtymWO3OhQIEazivZn+c6m0 ISB16/VsOYryaeLN6e9TP+0SGuj0NglESI4Rjb0tj43pyUyPjOejB81sFR7cHmy6fZUb I/sQpTTh28VyIMfOzSkJI50D5IbXQEiCL2j9TK8bzz8ckBfqoOJJ16bMxEIUpPlQCugp U3WkH1UjkfTF9aM9E02xaYW8W9XybIyQsObAFlxE4FjN6jSO7D6BQcgjeCxhpm3+Awl5 b2ig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ch6i7ZTbtYuB1NsvUbp8i0GzVOlf28nOvYrYtHgEz0c=; b=7JUVljslUkbElVe6PECD2+AgPlY4Z7Rc8aCangVS2WPdwNrQzFLt4YWdK7FflLp+kt WyNrdFs166WY+GcR941pNvfz8a1ow9w0kWMNXTeeGv8JYYOx2e5Y5QKkaPeAa2/wXczr f/5YWAI+LAJJ4zkt2qXo7SNWGfdVV6foFdTG9h5u8IxrrGkc/exA8BpsFNArrI2Af27B QCTuOZE3NLVXbSR1ffW+KA+FsI9DjezkAes4Y810wLhw0fSfPhdZVzmaxPtJH4IcrcVw IYuQmvxouwlrocXH/O2otOBJShEVfuoSfKWcayzFtH/uP3HtdrdXH6sEK2vw2Gfi9Y9E SoiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XGYokXPWifhBXUo55O7KDOgMhhmOVk2AAf7nr8gXuhtB1ljI6 VhyDmnZCvLlFc1WzZk33CYzyRLtI4M4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5dZyjRnBhj5hZQ7O5Ow87ANTakgy2Wn2eI8VimYdVwF387cIOYKGWu6N2lCBCiMjfz2ZMmg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:28e:: with SMTP id b14mr434081ljo.440.1637618419871; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.26.149] (ip-194-187-74-233.konfederacka.maverick.com.pl. [194.187.74.233]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z4sm1080088ljj.26.2021.11.22.14.00.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:00:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5113880f-d37d-0835-c140-c3749048c519@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 23:00:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/95.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: add Broadcom's BCM63xxx controller To: Florian Fainelli , Pavel Machek , Rob Herring Cc: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= References: <20211115091107.11737-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <495a94ce-984e-f5c5-f5a2-74dc1b61e345@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= In-Reply-To: <495a94ce-984e-f5c5-f5a2-74dc1b61e345@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 22.11.2021 22:51, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 11/15/21 1:11 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki >> >> Broadcom used 2 LEDs hardware blocks for their BCM63xx SoCs: >> 1. Older one (BCM6318, BCM6328, BCM6362, BCM63268, BCM6838) >> 2. Newer one (BCM6848, BCM6858, BCM63138, BCM63148, BCM63381, BCM68360) > > Just so the existing pattern/regexps continue to work, I would be naming > this "bcm63xx" to be consistent with the rest of existing code-base. The problem I saw with "bcm63xx" is that it seems to match all SoCs: those with old block and those with new block. So I guess both groups have the same right to use that "bcm63xx" based binding. To avoid favouring old or new block I decided to avoid "bcm63xx". Given above explanation: do you still prefer using "bcm63xx" based binding for the new block? I'm OK with that, I just want to make sure you're aware of that minor issue. Please let me know :)