Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: gpmc-child: add wait-pin polarity

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 05/10/2022 12:13, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-
>>> child.yaml
>>> index 6e3995bb1630..477189973334 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml
>>> @@ -230,6 +230,13 @@ properties:
>>>        Wait-pin used by client. Must be less than "gpmc,num-waitpins".
>>>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>  
>>> +  gpmc,wait-pin-polarity:
>>
>> 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'.
> 
> You are right. But nevertheless I can't agree with that in this patch series.
> I don't want to break consistency, since all bindings currently use 'gpmc'. At least this applies
> to the "ti,gpmc-child.yaml".
> 
> I think it makes more sense to create a complete new patch series for that specific change? This change
> wouldn't fit thematically the current patch series. 
> 

So you want to add new property incorrectly named and immediately new
patch which fixes the name? No, please squash this new patch into this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof