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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211006224659.21434-1-digetx@gmail.com> <20211006224659.21434-4-digetx@gmail.com>
 <YWimShkkxkR+bQLK@robh.at.kernel.org> <CAODwPW-2othAhTC9a_joBdHScA86iqs-FkZJZDrK5LxrJm8F8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <d69f99ed-75a4-9b8c-addb-3eaa2b2be6a6@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <d69f99ed-75a4-9b8c-addb-3eaa2b2be6a6@canonical.com>
From:   Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:46:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAODwPW-AMqQ+ZbnvUTuxP5Bbxdcy08GSXnhcLC+V6BW=OPYaqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id properties
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Cc:     Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> Unfortunately I have no clue what patch you talk about ("this patch").
> There is no context here, no link except the older LPDDR3.

Sorry, I tried to reply to
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211006224659.21434-4-digetx@gmail.com/
([PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id
properties) and was hoping that would automatically provide context.
That patch added two one-cell properties `revision-id1` and
`revision-id2` to "jedec,lpddr2". Earlier in
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg413733.html ([PATCH]
dt-bindings: ddr: Add optional manufacturer and revision ID to
LPDDR3), I had added a single two-cell property `revision-id` for the
same purpose to "jedec,lpddr3".

I think it would be better if this was consistent between the two
types of LPDDR memory. Should I just send a patch that replaces the
two revision IDs in "jedec,lpddr2" with a single one according to the
principle of "jedec,lpddr3"? Or is it too late for that now and the
binding already considered stable and unchangeable?