[PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: display: add dt-bindings for STM32 LVDS device

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 15/01/2024 17:51, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
> 
> On 1/15/24 16:46, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:20:04PM +0100, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote:
>>> Add "st,stm32mp25-lvds" compatible.
>>>

A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "dt-bindings for". The
"dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18

>>> Signed-off-by: Raphael Gallais-Pou <raphael.gallais-pou at foss.st.com>
>>> ---
>>> Depends on: "dt-bindings: stm32: add clocks and reset binding for
>>> 	    stm32mp25 platform" by Gabriel Fernandez
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> 	- Clarify commit dependency
>>> 	- Fix includes in the example
>>> 	- Fix YAML
>>> 	- Add "clock-cells" description
>>> 	- s/regroups/is composed of/
>>> 	- Changed compatible to show SoC specificity
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> 	- Switch compatible and clock-cells related areas
>>> 	- Remove faulty #include in the example.
>>> 	- Add entry in MAINTAINERS
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/display/st,stm32-lvds.yaml       | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
>> Filename matching compatible.
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> 
> I was unsure about this.
> 
> The driver will eventually support several SoCs with different compatibles,
> wouldn't this be more confusing ?

No. "Eventually" might never happen.

> I also wanted to keep the similarity with the "st,stm32-<ip>.yaml" name for the
> DRM STM drivers. Would that be possible ?

But why? The consistency we want is the filename matching compatible,
not matching other filenames. If you have here multiple devices,
document them *now*.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Raphaël

I hope you did not ignore rest of the comments... We expect some sort of
"ack/ok/I'll fix/whatever" message and you wrote nothing further.

Best regards,
Krzysztof