Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190521160330.28402-1-peron.clem@gmail.com> <20190521160330.28402-4-peron.clem@gmail.com>
 <20190522103243.mmrfato5p2mhtf4j@flea> <CAJiuCcdaZVLQyupEf8HPaUySakufXXAhzundo6VeyQaAyZ8Trw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190523125716.g4euwplfsvw4vqzl@flea>
In-Reply-To: <20190523125716.g4euwplfsvw4vqzl@flea>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUMOpcm9u?= <peron.clem@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 16:02:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJiuCcdE-RtiGpPKe-BMJpS-m=wOXy+30vS7iAvd6Ng7gaZWNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: add Allwinner H6 r_watchdog
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 14:57, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wro=
te:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:15:26PM +0200, Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 12:32, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 06:03:28PM +0200, Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron wro=
te:
> > > > Allwinner H6 has a second watchdog on the r-blocks which is
> > > > compatible with the A31.
> > > >
> > > > This commit add the H6 compatible for the r_watchdog.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cl=C3=A9ment P=C3=A9ron <peron.clem@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Unless you have some evidence that the two blocks are different, then
> > > you should just reuse the same one.
> >
> > I have no evidence it's different nor identical, it's not documented
> > in the user manual.
> > I thought it would better to have separate bindings in case there is a
> > difference.
> > Than don't have and find later that we have to introduce one.
>
> It's a tradeoff. Pushing your logic to the limit, we would have a
> compatible for each controller embedded in an SoC.
>
> This would be unmaintainable, and slightly useless since that case is
> very unlikely.
>
> However, having differences between SoCs is quite common, hence why we
> have different compatibles for each SoC.
Yes, that make sense, I will send a new version soon,

Thanks for the review,
Cl=C3=A9ment

>
> Maxime
>
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com