[PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: fsl,imx6ul-pinctrl: Convert i.MX35/5x/6 to YAML

[Marek Vasut]

On 10/17/24 1:16 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 10/16/24 7:26 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 01:20:51AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> The IOMUXC controller description is almost identical on i.MX35/5x/6 
>>> SoCs,
>>> except for the configuration bits which differ across SoCs. Rename the
>>> fsl,imx6ul-pinctrl.yaml to fsl,imx35-pinctrl.yaml, fill in compatible
>>> strings for the other SoCs and fill in the various bits into desciption.
>>> This way, i.MX35/5x/6 series SoCs can all be converted to YAML DT. 
>>> Remove
>>> the old text DT bindings description.
>>
>> Just a nit, but I prefer 'DT schema' over using 'YAML DT' or just
>> 'YAML'. YAML is just the file format we use and YAML is a lot of things
>> that's not DT schema including other uses/attempts with DT.
> 
> Fixed in V2 and also in the LTC3676 conversion, thanks.
> 
>> This generates lots of warnings (patchwork has the output) for pincfg
>> nodes which don't match 'grp$' node name convention. Do we really want
>> to "fix" all of those?
> 
> I had a look and many of those are simple, so I would say yes.
> 
>> We could allow anything, but then we don't
>> enforce anything on new stuff.
> 
> We do enforce grp$ on iMX8M , it just wasn't enforced on old DTs yet.
> 
>> Or this could be split between new and
>> old platforms. If we decide to fix any old ones, then just have to move
>> them to the "new" schema.
> Strictly speaking, iMX6 and older are all old platforms, but I think it 
> should be easy to fix them up.

So, it seems like fixing most of them DTs up wasn't that hard.
But I am worried I might've broken a few in the process. I guess users 
will complain and then we fix them up ?