Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for meson8 pwm type

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/11/2023 11:04, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml  | 36 +++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm puzzled, isn't it recommended to have a per-soc compatible now ?

Yes, it is.

>>> I have specifically addressed this matter in the description,
>>> haven't I ? What good would it do in this case ?

There is nothing about compatible naming in commit msg.

>>
>> Yes you did but I was asked for the last year+ that all new compatible
>> should be soc specific (while imprecise, in our care soc family should be ok),
>> with a possible semi-generic callback with an IP version or a first soc
>> implementing the IP.
>>
>>> Plus the definition of a SoC is very vague. One could argue that
>>> the content of the list bellow are vaguely defined families. Should we
>>> add meson8b, gxl, gxm, sm1 ? ... or even the actual SoC reference ?
>>> This list gets huge for no reason.
>>
>> I think in our case soc family is reasonable since they share same silicon
>> design.
>>
>>> We know all existing PWM of this type are the same. We have been using
>>> them for years. It is not a new support we know nothing about.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought something like:
>>>> - items:
>>>>      - enum:
>>>>          - amlogic,gxbb-pwm
>>>>          - amlogic,axg-pwm
>>>>          - amlogic,g12a-pwm
>>>>      - const: amlogic,pwm-v1
>>> I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here.
>>> Adding a "amlogic,pwm-v1" for the obsolete compatible ? No amlogic DT
>>> has that and I'm working to remove this type, so I don't get the point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> should be preferred instead of a single amlogic,meson8-pwm-v2 ?
>>> This is named after the first SoC supporting the type.
>>> Naming it amlogic,pwm-v2 would feel weird with the s4 coming after.
>>> Plus the doc specifically advise against this type of names.
>>
>> The -v2 refers to a pure software/dt implementation versioning and not
>> an HW version, so I'm puzzled and I requires DT maintainers advice here.
>>
>> Yes meson8b is the first "known" platform, even if I'm pretty sure meson6 has

Yes, this should be SoC-based compatible, unless you have clear
versioning scheme by SoC/IP block vendor. You named it not a HW version,
which kind of answers to the "unless" case - that's not hardware version.

> 
> This is not my point. I picked this name because I have to pick a
> specific device based one. Not because it is actually the first or
> not. I don't see a problem with meson6 being compatible with
> meson8-pwm-v2, if that ever comes along.

No, the point is not to use "v2". Use SoC compatibles.

> 
> I think the binding here satisfy the rule that it should be specific,
> and the intent that goes with it:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst?h=v6.7-rc2#n42
> 
>> the same pwm architecture, this is why "amlogic,pwm-v1" as fallback seems more
>> reasonable and s4 and later pwm could use the "amlogic,pwm-v2"
>> fallback.
> 
> That is not how understand this:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst?h=v6.7-rc2#n82
> 

Again, where the "v2" is defined? Where is any document explaining the
mapping between version blocks and SoC parts? Why do you list here only
major version? Blocks almost always have also minor (e.g. v2.0).

Best regards,
Krzysztof