Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31800-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:23:56 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Dharma Balasubiramani <dharma.b@microchip.com>
Cc: linux4microchip@microchip.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, conor.dooley@microchip.com,
	thierry.reding@gmail.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev, airlied@gmail.com, lee@kernel.org,
	Dharma Balasubiramani <dharma.b@microchip.com>,
	u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	conor+dt@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de, mripard@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bbrezillon@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel@ffwll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Convert Microchip's HLCDC Text based DT bindings
 to JSON schema
Message-ID: <20240120132356.GA345206@ravnborg.org>
References: <20240118092612.117491-1-dharma.b@microchip.com>
 <20240118193040.GA223383@ravnborg.org>
 <20240119195151.GB938671-robh@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240119195151.GB938671-robh@kernel.org>

Hi Dharma & Rob.

> > To make the DT binding backward compatible you likely need to add a few
> > compatible that otherwise would have been left out - but that should do
> > the trick.
> > 
> > The current atmel hlcdc driver that is split in three is IMO an
> > over-engineering, and the driver could benefit merging it all in one.
> > And the binding should not prevent this.
> 
> I agree on all this, but a conversion is not really the time to redesign 
> things. Trust me, I've wanted to on lots of conversions. It should be 
> possible to simplify the driver side while keeping the DT as-is. Just 
> make the display driver bind to the MFD node instead. After that, then 
> one could look at flattening everything to 1 node.

Understood and thinking a bit about it fully agreed as well.
Dharma - please see my comments only as ideas for the future, and
ignore them in this fine rewrite you do.

	Sam