Re: [PATCH 03/11] ARM: dts: qcom: Update devicetree for ADC7 rename for QCOM PMICs

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To: Jishnu Prakash <quic_jprakash@quicinc.com>,
	agross@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
	Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
	dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org, quic_subbaram@quicinc.com,
	quic_collinsd@quicinc.com, quic_kamalw@quicinc.com,
	marijn.suijten@somainline.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	cros-qcom-dts-watchers@chromium.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] ARM: dts: qcom: Update devicetree for ADC7 rename for QCOM PMICs
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:59:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8114d2f9-43d8-4761-adfa-aad9ae249cbc@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7ccaf08e-0add-33e5-fbea-ce737e53fa28@quicinc.com>

On 09/11/2023 09:22, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 10/23/2023 12:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/10/2023 08:09, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 7/9/2023 10:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2023 09:28, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>>>>> The name "ADC7" needs to be replaced with the name "ADC5_GEN2"
>>>>> everywhere to match the convention used for these ADC peripherals
>>>>> on Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. PMICs. Update devicetree files for
>>>> We do not rename compatibles to match convention. Please provide proper
>>>> rationale.
>>> I'll avoid renaming the compatible directly, will just mark it
>>> deprecated - but is it fine to do the other changes, for updating the
>>> macro names used in devicetree (replacing the ADC7 macros with the ADC5
>>> Gen2 macros)?
>> Please provide proper rationale why "ADC7 needs to be replaced". Your
>> marketing is not a proper rationale.
> 
> 
> The name "ADC7" was the one used internally at first, but it got changed 
> later to "ADC5 Gen2" by our HW team, after we had added this support 
> both downstream and upstream. Since we are now adding support for the 
> next generation named "ADC5 Gen3", we thought it would be helpful to 
> indicate in some way that this generation (ADC7) lies between the 
> earlier ADC5 and the latest ADC5 Gen3.

You keep replying with the same arguments as before. I wrote that
marketing, so how you call your devices and then change your mind, is
not the valid rationale.

> 
> Since you do not want us to modify the existing bindings, is it fine if 
> I just add a new compatible for ADC5 Gen2 and comments to indicate the 
> ADC7 compatible should be considered deprecated?

No, because adc7 compatible is valid and there is no reason to replace
it. Just because you changed naming does not matter for compatibles.
It's just unique string, that's it. Don't touch it.

> 
> If you are not convinced, we can drop the Gen2 name related changes from 
> the patch series.

Feel free to add comments or descriptions, if you want to map some
marketing name to real hardware or to compatibles.

Best regards,
Krzysztof