[PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: pwm: amlogic: add new compatible for meson8 pwm type

[neil.armstrong at linaro.org]

On 30/11/2023 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 17:41, neil.armstrong at linaro.org wrote:
>>>>>     .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml  | 52 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>     1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> index 387976ed36d5..eece390114a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-amlogic.yaml
>>>>> @@ -21,23 +21,35 @@ properties:
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ee-pwm
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-ab
>>>>>               - amlogic,meson-g12a-ao-pwm-cd
>>>>> -          - amlogic,meson-s4-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gx-ao-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson-gxbb-ao-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>>           - items:
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson8-pwm
>>>>>               - const: amlogic,meson8b-pwm
>>>>> +        deprecated: true
>>>>
>>>> I think deprecated should be moved in a third patch
>>>
>>> The complain on v2 was that it was not clear the new binding was making
>>> the old one obsolete. It looked to me that the deprecation old bindings
>>> needed to go together with the introduction of the new.
>>>
>>> I don't mind one way or the other
>>>
>>> Is there a rule somewhere about this ?
>>
>> Not sure about that, I don't think it's a problem to have both valid
>> at the same time, setting them deprecated afterwards looks cleaner
>> to avoid mixing too much changes at the same time.
> 
> For me current order is correct and intuitive: you add new binding,
> because old binding was wrong, so the old binding should be deprecated.
> Otherwise you have a state with both new and old binding and one could
> question - why did we need new binding? For dtschema it does not matter,
> but it matters how we read the code.

Ack thx for the clarification

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks,
Neil