From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D39C433E0 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F1220838 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=walle.cc header.i=@walle.cc header.b="o8YM+mX4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728320AbgG1Jjd (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47254 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728197AbgG1Jjc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:32 -0400 Received: from ssl.serverraum.org (ssl.serverraum.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:151:8464::1:2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6AAC061794; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 02:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ssl.serverraum.org (web.serverraum.org [172.16.0.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.serverraum.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54F7722FEB; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:39:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=walle.cc; s=mail2016061301; t=1595929170; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=64gdmRmPNUAWxLuPtaHOnsTHn2FxnHw9JZXkDuXvtZc=; b=o8YM+mX42C2t3je/oH3/fZv44ZYDoiucvXv3qUg5hvBntlN/+8aWdGh0ld+f0XgZcL0dMn HI3VlmaE9HskRrEarnJ18TJsbPuIbhv12jccoIuPt4mtL+9vtkuRSD7nJ0+zSZ8X928a24 /nmJJUx4WDgLDFPyJkWZ6i1nNmFYbwY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:39:30 +0200 From: Michael Walle To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Rob Herring , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , Thierry Reding , =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , Wim Van Sebroeck , Shawn Guo , Li Yang , Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andy Shevchenko , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Pavel Machek , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld In-Reply-To: <20200728092016.GE2419169@dell> References: <20200725231834.25642-1-michael@walle.cc> <20200725231834.25642-3-michael@walle.cc> <20200728072422.GF1850026@dell> <1065b0107ce6fd88b2bdd704bf45346b@walle.cc> <20200728082707.GB2419169@dell> <20200728085616.GD2419169@dell> <2fd3b880e36aa65e880b801092b51945@walle.cc> <20200728092016.GE2419169@dell> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.7 Message-ID: <7aebbd1986d1a0e57fd34c2ccf5e03e3@walle.cc> X-Sender: michael@walle.cc Sender: linux-hwmon-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org Am 2020-07-28 11:20, schrieb Lee Jones: >> What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? >> How is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by >> the vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor >> might name it adt7412. > > Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus. > > So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually > arbitrary. That's a good start. > >> We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here? > > Do you though? So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device? The name > that is quoted from the (private) datasheet? Because looking at the > implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though > you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for > revision identification. Which if true, is not usually allowed and > warrants intervention by Rob. Revisions would imply backwards compatibility, correct? I'm not aming for that. Yes, I appended that "-r1" (in the lack of any better suffix) because I didn't want to tie the base name to the simple MFD, just in case. And isn't that the whole purpose of the compatible string? To connect a driver to a piece of hardware? But even here, I don't care anymore. I strip it again. So future incarnations which aren't compatible with simple mfd will need another name. So what. -michael