Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:21:35 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     "Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie" 
        <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
Cc:     "kishon@ti.com" <kishon@ti.com>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
        "eswara.kota@linux.intel.com" <eswara.kota@linux.intel.com>,
        "vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com" 
        <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com>,
        "Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai" 
        <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC PHY
 bindings
Message-ID: <20200901055135.GY2639@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200821113747.2912-1-wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
 <20200821113747.2912-3-wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
 <20200831091013.GL2639@vkoul-mobl>
 <DM6PR11MB37210C56315013E4995DE2A3DD2E0@DM6PR11MB3721.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB37210C56315013E4995DE2A3DD2E0@DM6PR11MB3721.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01-09-20, 04:58, Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:

> > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> > phy.yaml#"
> > > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
> > > +
> > > +title: Intel Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings
> > 
> > This seems same as
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-emmc-phy.yaml, why
> > not add a new compatible in lgm binding, or did I miss a difference?
> 
> AFAIK, LGM make use of syscon node, whilst KMB does not.
> And LGM and KMB belongs to different SoC family. So, I prefer them to
> be in separate file.
> 
> Having said that, with few changes in wordings in title and description,
> I think we can make it generic and can be used across few products.

The bindings seems quite similar. We can have two drivers loaded using
two compatible but binding description can be made same

-- 
~Vinod