Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: omap-mcpdm: Convert to DT schema

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

On 05/04/2024 19:21, Mithil wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:38 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2024 18:29, Mithil wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2024 16:48, Mithil wrote:
>>>>> So sorry about the 2nd patch being sent as a new mail, here is a new
>>>>> patch with the changes as suggested
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please use subject prefixes matching the subsystem
>>>>> Changed the patch name to match the folder history.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing improved. What the history tells you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Referred to "ASoC: dt-bindings: rt1015: Convert to dtschema"
>>> Not really sure what else I should change.
>>
>> But the subject you wrote here is "dt-bindings: omap-mcpdm: Convert to
>> DT schema"?
>>
>> Where is the ASoC?
>>
> I did change it, will send the patch again.
> 
>>
>> reg is not correct. Please point me to files doing that way, so I can
>> fix them.
>>
>> You need items with description.
>>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,imx-asrc.yaml
> I referred here for the description, but will add items for the 2 regs

I don't see at all the code you are using. It's entirely different!
Where in this file is that type of "reg" property?

> 
>>> Interrupts and hwmods use maxItems now.
>>
>> hwmods lost description, why?
> Seems self explanatory.

Really? Not to me. I have no clue what this is. Also, you need
description for (almost) every non-standard, vendor property.

> 
>>> Changed nodename to be generic in example as well.
>>
>> "mcpdm" does not feel generic. What is mcpdm? Google finds nothing.
>> Maybe just "pdm"?
>>
> Multichannel PDM Controller. Kept it like that since the node is also

You said you "changed nodename". So from what did you change to what?

> called as mcpdm in the devicetree. Calling it pdm might cause

Poor DTS is not the example...

> confusion.

So far I am confused. Often name of SoC block is specific, not generic.
Anyway, that's not important part, so if you claim mcpdm is generic name
of a class of devices, I am fine.

Best regards,
Krzysztof