Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: SPI: Add Ingenic SFC bindings.

[Mike Yang <reimu@sudomaker.com>]

On 7/24/22 01:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote:
>>>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC,
>>>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml       | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>> +---
>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml#
>>> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so
>>> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml
>>
>>
>> No offense, does it really need to be named that way?
>> I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :(
>>
>> The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation
>> for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into
>> thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many
>> other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml,
>> spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml,
>> omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first
>> compatible are also for the same consideration. :)
> 
> We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an
> argument to add one more bad pattern.

Zhou already mentioned he was unable find the naming guidelines of these .yaml files.

Apparently you think it's unacceptable for new contributors of a certain subsystem to use existing code as examples, and/or they're responsible for figuring out what's a good example and what's a bad one in the existing codebase.

> 
> It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so
> that is not really an argument.

It is an argument. A very valid one.

"they *might* be different". You may want to get your hands on real hardware and try another word. Or at least read the datasheets instead of believing your imagination.

I would enjoy duplicating the st,stm32-spi.yaml into st,stm32{f,h}{0..7}-spi.yaml if I'm bored at a Sunday afternoon.

> 
> All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you
> think it is an exception for you?

Zhou didn't ask you to make an exception. They have a valid point and they're asking why.

You may want to avoid further incidents of this kind by stop being bossy and actually writing a guideline of naming these .yaml files and publish it somewhere online.

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Best regards,
Mike Yang