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:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:01:57 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@mistralsolutions.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: hwlock: omap: Remove board-specific
 compatible from DT example
Message-ID: <YUkE1TRVBxnLuktb@builder.lan>
References: <20210917094740.18891-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com>
 <20210917144455.nj6bc2enytlgqmzn@studied>
 <ba7e9eff-6cd1-2705-4c27-f3a700345ed2@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ba7e9eff-6cd1-2705-4c27-f3a700345ed2@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 20 Sep 16:14 CDT 2021, Suman Anna wrote:

> On 9/17/21 9:44 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 15:17-20210917, Sinthu Raja wrote:
> >> From: Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@ti.com>
> >>
> >> The example includes a board-specific compatible property, this is
> >> wrong as the example should be board agnostic. Replace the same with a
> >> generic soc node.
> >>
> >> Fixes: d8db9dc34871 ("dt-bindings: hwlock: omap: Convert binding to YAML")
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This patch was triggered by discussions in [1].
> >>
> >> When applying the patch, if you could provide an immutable tag for the
> >> bindings, it would help line things up for new platforms to be added for
> >> us. See [2] for the context
> > 
> > 
> > Aah yes, thanks.. Bjorn.. once Rob acks ofcourse (since this is
> > bindings).
> 
> Hmm, I don't think an immutable tag is needed for this patch. This is just
> cleanup, what is your exact dependency here?
> 
> The relevant HwSpinlock dts nodes are all upstream on all applicable platforms
> already.
> 

I agree and in general I think it's better to do DT validation against
linux-next, as you would otherwise miss out on any newly introduced
issues from inherited bindings etc.

Regards,
Bjorn

> regards
> Suman
> 
> 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/
> >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210125141642.4yybjnklk3qsqjdy@steersman/
> >>
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml        | 4 +---
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml
> >> index ae1b37dbee75..d56dc1bebdc6 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/ti,omap-hwspinlock.yaml
> >> @@ -47,10 +47,8 @@ examples:
> >>      };
> >>  
> >>    - |
> >> -    / {
> >> +    soc {
> >>          /* K3 AM65x SoCs */
> >> -        model = "Texas Instruments K3 AM654 SoC";
> >> -        compatible = "ti,am654-evm", "ti,am654";
> >>          #address-cells = <2>;
> >>          #size-cells = <2>;
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 2.32.0
> >>
> > 
>