[PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: mux-j7200-wiz: Add lane function defines

[Nishanth Menon]

On 14:37-20200917, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]

> >>> Should not the defines start with J7200_WIZ? SERDES0 seems like a too
> >>> generic prefix, at least to me.
> >>
> >> Thanks, good point. I am not sure if WIZ should even be used.. It is
> >> a TI internal prefix for various serdes solutions, but I agree that
> >> SERDES0 is too generic a terminology. That said, we should cleanup
> >> include/dt-bindings/mux/mux-j721e-wiz.h as well, prior to introducing
> >> j7200 changes.
> >>
> > 
> > I'm planning to put all TI SERDES definitions in one header file "ti-serdes-mux.h"
> > and add SOC specific prefixes to the macros.
> > 
> > This will mean some churn in the existing DT files. (only 2 so far)
> > 
> > Are you guys OK if I do the change in one patch to avoid a broken build in between.
> > You guys can then decide whose tree it goes through.
> > 
> > The new SoC addition will be separate of course.
> 
> We should get these changes done before 5.9 is released.

OK.

> Not breaking the build for each intermediate step is always a priority.
> Also, renaming mux-j721e-wiz.h to ti-serdes-mux.h and renaming the macros
> could be seen as orthogonal, and it is certainly possible to do that
> as two patches without breaking the build in between. It would just need
> changes on both sides of the interface in both patches. But I wouldn't
> worry about separating this into two patches, just do a rename patch and
> be done with it. Then follow up with additions for j7200.
> 
> However, now that we are renaming things anyway, do we really need "mux"
> in the name of the file itself?
> I personally find .../dt-dbindings/mux/ti-serdes.h descriptive enough.

yep, OK with me.


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D