Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add QDU1000 and QRU1000 pinctrl

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 21/11/2022 21:38, Melody Olvera wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/20/2022 4:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/11/2022 19:20, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>> Add device tree bindings for QDU1000 and QRU1000 TLMM devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml   | 134 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 134 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..cb0c496d8666
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/qcom,qdu1000-tlmm.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. QDU1000/QRU1000 TLMM block
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> +  - Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
>>> +
>>> +description: |
>>> +  This Top Level Mode Multiplexer block (TLMM) is found in the QDU1000 and
>>> +  QRU1000 platforms.
>> It's better to keep consistent style which allows to do easy
>> search/replace, than to have new files using their own sentences. So
>> keep it the same as was unified in few recent commits.
> 
> Ok... Just making sure that's what you want. Last PS you gave comments to change
> the wording of this description to remove "This binding describes..." as we've done
> in all the other qcom pinctrl/tlmm bindings. I can change the wording back to the
> original, just want to be clear here.

I propose to have the same wording as other Qualcomm TLMM bindings,
however you changed it to something not the same. Therefore I wonder -
why having here different wording than all other bindings?

By going back to original - what do you mean? If it matches all others,
then yes, but I doubt it.

Just to be sure - are you working on proper (recent) trees or something old?

Best regards,
Krzysztof