[PATCH v3 3/6] dt-bindings: nvmem: mediatek: efuse: Reuse mt8186-efuse in mt8188

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 03/10/24 10:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 09:42:32AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 02/10/24 08:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:21:35AM +0800, Pablo Sun wrote:
>>>> mt8188 has the same GPU speed binning efuse field just
>>>> like mt8186, which requires post-processing to convert to the
>>>> bit field format specified by OPP table.
>>>>
>>>> Add the binding for the compatible list:
>>>>     "mediatek,mt8188-efuse", "mediatek,mt8186-efuse"
>>>> so mt8188 uses the same conversion.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pablo Sun <pablo.sun at mediatek.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml | 4 ++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml
>>>> index 32b8c1eb4e80..70815a3329bf 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml
>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,10 @@ properties:
>>>>                  - mediatek,mt8195-efuse
>>>>                  - mediatek,mt8516-efuse
>>>>              - const: mediatek,efuse
>>>> +      - items:
>>>> +          - enum:
>>>> +              - mediatek,mt8188-efuse
>>>> +          - const: mediatek,mt8186-efuse
>>>
>>> And this is not compatible with generic one? This is confusing. Why are
>>> you adding generic fallbacks if they are not valid?
>>>
>>
>> It was my suggestion to start dropping the usage of the generic "mediatek,efuse"
>> fallback, as I've seen multiple times feedback saying to not use generic fallbacks.
>>
>> Was that wrong?
> 
> No, just nothing provided the background that such change is
> intentional. Please mention in commit msg that the preferred way from
> now on is not using the generic fallback.  Maybe even add it to the
> binding itself as comment, so people won't grow the enum with fallback.
> 

Cool. Thanks for the explanation, krzk.

Pablo, can you please add a comment in the binding saying that no more entries
shall be added to the generic fallback set?

Having a comment there, instead of just into the commit message, would be (imo)
better... as then, anyone trying to add new compatibles will be more likely to
read that.

Cheers,
Angelo