Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <34bed9a9-a995-c922-c197-062c7170f6f3@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 23 Jul 2022 22:05:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: SPI: Add Ingenic SFC bindings.
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mike Yang <reimu@sudomaker.com>,
        Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>,
        tudor.ambarus@microchip.com, p.yadav@ti.com, michael@walle.cc,
        miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, richard@nod.at, vigneshr@ti.com,
        broonie@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org
Cc:     linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com,
        tmn505@gmail.com, paul@crapouillou.net, dongsheng.qiu@ingenic.com,
        aric.pzqi@ingenic.com, rick.tyliu@ingenic.com,
        jinghui.liu@ingenic.com, sernia.zhou@foxmail.com
References: <1658508510-15400-1-git-send-email-zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>
 <1658508510-15400-3-git-send-email-zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>
 <487a93c4-3301-aefd-abba-aabf4cb8ec90@linaro.org>
 <37062a5d-9da3-fbaf-89bd-776f32be36d9@wanyeetech.com>
 <d1a0dd15-3621-14e9-b931-417cefaab017@linaro.org>
 <b5505a46-ce76-d0aa-009e-81d9ba16e1d5@sudomaker.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5505a46-ce76-d0aa-009e-81d9ba16e1d5@sudomaker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/07/2022 20:47, Mike Yang wrote:
> On 7/24/22 01:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote:
>>>>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC,
>>>>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@wanyeetech.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml       | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>>>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>> +---
>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml#
>>>> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so
>>>> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml
>>>
>>>
>>> No offense, does it really need to be named that way?
>>> I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :(
>>>
>>> The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation
>>> for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into
>>> thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many
>>> other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml,
>>> spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml,
>>> omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first
>>> compatible are also for the same consideration. :)
>>
>> We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an
>> argument to add one more bad pattern.
> 
> Zhou already mentioned he was unable find the naming guidelines of these .yaml files.
> 
> Apparently you think it's unacceptable for new contributors of a certain subsystem to use existing code as examples, and/or they're responsible for figuring out what's a good example and what's a bad one in the existing codebase.

It's everywhere in the kernel, what can I say? If you copy existing
code, you might copy poor code...

> 
>>
>> It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so
>> that is not really an argument.
> 
> It is an argument. A very valid one.
> 
> "they *might* be different". You may want to get your hands on real hardware and try another word. Or at least read the datasheets instead of believing your imagination.
> 
> I would enjoy duplicating the st,stm32-spi.yaml into st,stm32{f,h}{0..7}-spi.yaml if I'm bored at a Sunday afternoon.
> 
>>
>> All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you
>> think it is an exception for you?
> 
> Zhou didn't ask you to make an exception. They have a valid point and they're asking why.

Hm, everyone has the same valid point and such recommendation is to
everyone, although it is nothing serious.

> You may want to avoid further incidents of this kind by stop being bossy and actually writing a guideline of naming these .yaml files and publish it somewhere online.

I did not see any incident here... Process of review includes comments
and there is nothing bad happening when you receive a comment. No
incident...

Best regards,
Krzysztof