Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: dts: imx93: Add phyBOARD-Segin-i.MX93 support

From: Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@phytec.de>
To: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
	Primoz Fiser <primoz.fiser@norik.com>,
	Christoph Stoidner <c.stoidner@phytec.de>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<upstream@lists.phytec.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: dts: imx93: Add phyBOARD-Segin-i.MX93 support
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 07:05:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <13f6edd6-f3ae-4e32-88e9-03355d78153c@phytec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2fcb4d4-b1d7-4d82-a3b0-d06c0ffd906b@gmx.net>

Am 24.01.24 um 18:28 schrieb Stefan Wahren:
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> Am 24.01.24 um 14:48 schrieb Mathieu Othacehe:
>> Hello Stefan,
>>
>>>> Defining line names should be fine. But I would still prefer to have
>>>> the muxing in an overlay bound to a specific use case.
>>> I'm fine with this. Unfortunately Mathieu dropped the line names in V5
>>> today :-(
>>>
>>> AFAIR reviewers should have 2 weeks time maximum. This was just 2 days.
>> I am sorry but it is not easy for me to deal with contradictory input. I
>> chose to remove the gpio-line-names even though it also seemed like a
>> nice addition to me. The idea was to not interfere with Phytec plans in
>> the future.
> tbh sending v5 before the discussion between Wadim and me was finished
> made it more complicated. Please keep in mind that some reviewers do
> this in their spare time, so a response could take some time.
>
> In this particular case Wadim and me agreed on a solution, so no action
> from your side was necessary except a little bit patience.
>
> The reason why i suggested the gpio-line-names in the first place is
> that users doesn't need to care about different versions of the DT files
> (except the downstream one). Changing the line names afterwards leads to
> confusion.
>
> So before we discuss on a v6, just a question: are on the X16 connector
> just 2 pins muxable as GPIO? This is hard to believe.

In theory you can use more of the Pins as GPIOs. But at this point I 
should mention that the Segin board became slightly more complicated 
since it started to support more SoMs with different SoCs. We have 
routings for various pins to help with the compatibility. So the naming 
in the schematics is not really trivial. And IMO the dt should follow 
the naming of the schematics.

I would prefer to go with v5 without having any namings for now.

Regards,
Wadim

>
> Best regards
>> There is no hurry and I can always restore them in a v6.
>>
>> Let me know what you think,
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>