| Message ID | 20240205110244.676779-1-naresh.solanki@9elements.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: mfd: Update pattern property case | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dtbs-check | warning | build log |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | success |
On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: > Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. > Hence align with the same. Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the moment you add DT for the first time. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 18:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. > > Hence align with the same. > > Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that > way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the > moment you add DT for the first time. Yes the driver has DT support already. This patch is to align with driver: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/regulator/max5970-regulator.c#L381 It was aligned but I missed on case sensitivity. Driver expects it to be SW0/SW1 but DT had it as sw0/sw1. Regards, Naresh > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 05/02/2024 15:00, Naresh Solanki wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 18:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: >>> Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. >>> Hence align with the same. >> >> Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that >> way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the >> moment you add DT for the first time. > Yes the driver has DT support already. > This patch is to align with driver: > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/regulator/max5970-regulator.c#L381 That's not support for DT, but just naming regulators. > > It was aligned but I missed on case sensitivity. I don't see the alignment. Where did you align it? Which commit? > Driver expects it to be SW0/SW1 > but DT had it as sw0/sw1. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 13:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 05/02/2024 15:00, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 18:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: > >>> Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. > >>> Hence align with the same. > >> > >> Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that > >> way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the > >> moment you add DT for the first time. > > Yes the driver has DT support already. > > This patch is to align with driver: > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/regulator/max5970-regulator.c#L381 > > That's not support for DT, but just naming regulators. I'm not sure if I get your perspective right & please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to adjust the dt binding of max5970 because found errors related to regulator child node SW0/SW1. Regulator driver expects to have regulators child nodes as SW0/1(upper case) But dt binding expects it to be lower case. Thus there is misalignment & due to which, when running CHECK_DTBS for my mainboard DTS, I see some errors. > > > > > It was aligned but I missed on case sensitivity. > > I don't see the alignment. Where did you align it? Which commit? The current patch is to address the regulators child node name with driver. Regards, Naresh > > > Driver expects it to be SW0/SW1 > > but DT had it as sw0/sw1. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 06/02/2024 12:07, Naresh Solanki wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 13:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 05/02/2024 15:00, Naresh Solanki wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 18:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: >>>>> Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. >>>>> Hence align with the same. >>>> >>>> Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that >>>> way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the >>>> moment you add DT for the first time. >>> Yes the driver has DT support already. >>> This patch is to align with driver: >>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/regulator/max5970-regulator.c#L381 >> >> That's not support for DT, but just naming regulators. > I'm not sure if I get your perspective right & please correct me if I'm wrong, > I'm just trying to adjust the dt binding of max5970 because found > errors related to > regulator child node SW0/SW1. > Regulator driver expects to have regulators child nodes as SW0/1(upper case) > But dt binding expects it to be lower case. > Thus there is misalignment & due to which, when running CHECK_DTBS for my > mainboard DTS, I see some errors. I understood that, no need to clarify, it is kind of obvious. I still claim the same: When the binding was added? Mid 2023. When the driver was added? Much earlier. So someone posted driver bypassing DT documentation and review and now you claim we need to accept the driver choice. Do you think this is correct process? If so, what stops people from sending all the driver changes without DT and documenting whatever they had post-factum? > >> >>> >>> It was aligned but I missed on case sensitivity. >> >> I don't see the alignment. Where did you align it? Which commit? > The current patch is to address the regulators child node name with driver. So it was not aligned? Confused... Best regards, Krzysztof
On 06/02/2024 12:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/02/2024 12:07, Naresh Solanki wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 13:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/02/2024 15:00, Naresh Solanki wrote: >>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 18:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 05/02/2024 12:02, Naresh Solanki wrote: >>>>>> Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. >>>>>> Hence align with the same. >>>>> >>>>> Did the driver have DT support before? I think no, so why aligning that >>>>> way? I would argue that driver should be aligned with bindings, the >>>>> moment you add DT for the first time. >>>> Yes the driver has DT support already. >>>> This patch is to align with driver: >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/regulator/max5970-regulator.c#L381 >>> >>> That's not support for DT, but just naming regulators. >> I'm not sure if I get your perspective right & please correct me if I'm wrong, >> I'm just trying to adjust the dt binding of max5970 because found >> errors related to >> regulator child node SW0/SW1. >> Regulator driver expects to have regulators child nodes as SW0/1(upper case) >> But dt binding expects it to be lower case. >> Thus there is misalignment & due to which, when running CHECK_DTBS for my >> mainboard DTS, I see some errors. > > I understood that, no need to clarify, it is kind of obvious. I still > claim the same: When the binding was added? Mid 2023. When the driver > was added? Much earlier. So someone posted driver bypassing DT > documentation and review and now you claim we need to accept the driver > choice. Do you think this is correct process? > > If so, what stops people from sending all the driver changes without DT > and documenting whatever they had post-factum? I would like to add that OF probing for MFD driver was added the same time as bindings, so that's the time when OF was added. Therefore you cannot use excuse "there is ABI", because your commits added both OF support and non-matching documentation. My stance is: fix the driver, not the binding. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/maxim,max5970.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/maxim,max5970.yaml index 0da5cae3852e..43c7f7f8d43f 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/maxim,max5970.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/maxim,max5970.yaml @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ properties: Properties for both hot swap control/switch. patternProperties: - "^sw[0-1]$": + "^SW[0-1]$": $ref: /schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml# type: object properties: @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ examples: vss1-supply = <&p3v3>; regulators { - sw0_ref_0: sw0 { + sw0_ref_0: SW0 { shunt-resistor-micro-ohms = <12000>; }; }; @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ examples: vss2-supply = <&p5v>; regulators { - sw0_ref_1: sw0 { + sw0_ref_1: SW0 { shunt-resistor-micro-ohms = <12000>; }; - sw1_ref_1: sw1 { + sw1_ref_1: SW1 { shunt-resistor-micro-ohms = <10000>; }; };
Driver expects regulator child node in upper case. Hence align with the same. Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/maxim,max5970.yaml | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) base-commit: 54be6c6c5ae8e0d93a6c4641cb7528eb0b6ba478