Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: DT bindings: Tegra AHB: note base address change

Stephen Warren
2015-03-19T17:46:54Z

On 03/19/2015 10:34 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 03/19/2015 09:33 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/17/2015 02:32 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>>>> For Tegra132 and later chips, we can now use the correct hardware base
>>>>> address for the Tegra AHB IP block in the DT data. Update the DT
>>>>> binding
>>>>> documentation to reflect this change.
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
>>>>> index 067c979..7692b4c 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra/nvidia,tegra20-ahb.txt
>>>>> @@ -2,10 +2,15 @@ NVIDIA Tegra AHB
>>>>>
>>>>> Required properties:
>>>>> - compatible : For Tegra20, must contain "nvidia,tegra20-ahb". For
>>>>> - Tegra30, must contain "nvidia,tegra30-ahb". Otherwise, must contain
>>>>> - '"nvidia,<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"' where <chip> is tegra124,
>>>>> - tegra132, or tegra210.
>>>>> -- reg : Should contain 1 register ranges(address and length)
>>>>> + Tegra30, must contain "nvidia,tegra30-ahb". For Tegra114 and
>>>>> Tegra124,
>>>>> must
>>>>> + contain '"nvidia,<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"' where <chip> is
>>>>> tegra114
>>>>> + or tegra124. For Tegra132, the compatible string must contain
>>>>> + "nvidia,tegra132-ahb".
>>>>> +
>>>>> +- reg : Should contain 1 register ranges(address and length). On
>>>>> Tegra20,
>>>>> + Tegra30, Tegra114, and Tegra124 chips, the low byte of the physical
>>>>> base
>>>>> + address of the IP block must end in 0x04. On DT files for later
>>>>> chips,
>>>>> the
>>>>> + actual hardware base address of the IP block should be used.
>>>>
>>>> A table-based approach rather than prose might make this more legible?
>>>>
>>>> - compatible: Must contain the following:
>>>> Tegra20: "nvidia,tegra20-ahb"
>>>> Tegra30: "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
>>>> Tegra114: "nvidia,tegra114-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
>>>> Tegra124: "nvidia,tegra124-ahb", "nvidia,tegra30-ahb"
>>>> Tegra132: "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
>>>> Tegra210: "nvidia,tegra210-ahb", "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
>>>>
>>>> With any luck, we can extend that final item for future chips to be:
>>>>
>>>> Tegra210, TegraNNN:
>>>> "nvidia,tegra<chip>-ahb", "nvidia,tegra132-ahb"
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we format the 114/124 entry that way too.
>>>
>>> I think I'm just going to drop this patch, since Russell prefers that the
>>> workaround is applied in the driver.
>>>
>>> With regards to using tables rather than narrative descriptions: perhaps
>>> consider a patch to
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt ? I don't know
>>> what the DT binding documentation maintainers' future plans are with
>>> regards to automated documentation reflow, etc., but submitting a patch
>>> there would stimulate at least some coordination on the issue.
>>
>> I don't think it's appropriate for that file to dictate that, in the same way
>> that coding style documentation generally doesn't address that kind of detail
>> regarding code structure.
>
> We do indeed specify details like this in our documentation guidelines.
> Here are two examples:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt#n103
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/CodingStyle#n464

Perhaps I phrased my point slightly differently form the core of what I
meant.

I'm not aware that review feedback can't address topics that are not
already addressed by the documentation. Is there such a rule?

Equally, I think if you want the documentation to address a particular
point, it's appropriate for you to submit a patch to the documentation
to update it, rather than ask the reviewer to do so before accepting the
review feedback.