On 15/01/2024 17:51, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: > > On 1/15/24 16:46, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:20:04PM +0100, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: >>> Add "st,stm32mp25-lvds" compatible. >>>
A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "dt-bindings for". The "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. See also: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18 >>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-...@foss.st.com> >>> --- >>> Depends on: "dt-bindings: stm32: add clocks and reset binding for >>> stm32mp25 platform" by Gabriel Fernandez >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>> - Clarify commit dependency >>> - Fix includes in the example >>> - Fix YAML >>> - Add "clock-cells" description >>> - s/regroups/is composed of/ >>> - Changed compatible to show SoC specificity >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - Switch compatible and clock-cells related areas >>> - Remove faulty #include in the example. >>> - Add entry in MAINTAINERS >>> --- >>> .../bindings/display/st,stm32-lvds.yaml | 119 ++++++++++++++++++ >> Filename matching compatible. > > Hi Rob, > > > I was unsure about this. > > The driver will eventually support several SoCs with different compatibles, > wouldn't this be more confusing ? No. "Eventually" might never happen. > I also wanted to keep the similarity with the "st,stm32-<ip>.yaml" name for > the > DRM STM drivers. Would that be possible ? But why? The consistency we want is the filename matching compatible, not matching other filenames. If you have here multiple devices, document them *now*. > > > Regards, > > Raphaël I hope you did not ignore rest of the comments... We expect some sort of "ack/ok/I'll fix/whatever" message and you wrote nothing further. Best regards, Krzysztof
