Re: [PATCH 2/8] dt-bindings: pinctrl: aspeed: Convert AST2400 bindings to json-schema

[Andrew Jeffery]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, at 23:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 6:44 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, at 23:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:21 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Convert ASPEED pinctrl bindings to DT schema format using json-schema
> > >
> > > BTW, ASPEED is one of the remaining platforms needing the top-level
> > > board bindings converted.
> >
> > Okay, I'll put together patches to fix that.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.txt        | 80 -------------------
> > > >  .../pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml       | 73 +++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> > > >  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.txt
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..3b8cf3e51506
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > >
> > > Do you have rights to change the license?
> >
> > Where are you coming from with this question? The bindings previously didn't list a
> > license, is there some implicit license for them? I would have thought it was GPL-2.0?
> 
> Yes, it is implicitly GPL-2.0 since it is in the kernel tree and has
> no other license text.
> 
> > IBM's (my employer's) preferred contribution license is GPL 2.0-or-later, so I was just
> > adding the SPDX marker to clarify.
> 
> Adding 'or-later' is a licensing change. If IBM is the copyright
> holder on all this file, then that is fine.

I authored the file for IBM and they hold the copyright, so the change is permitted.

> 
> > > If so, the preference is to
> > > dual license with (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause).
> >
> > You're asking if I have the power to relicense so I can dual license it this way?
> 
> It would probably be up to your company. If that's an issue, then not
> dual licensing is fine. I don't want to hold things up on that.

Okay. I've asked and the query is being resolved internally. I'm not sure when
that will occur though, so I'll relicense it in a future patch if the request gets
the go ahead. Just for the record, what's the motivation for the dual license?
Understanding why will likely help resolve the request.

> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +required:
> > > > +  - compatible
> > > > +
> > > > +description: |+
> > >
> > > description goes before properties.
> >
> > Okay. I wouldn't have thought the ordering mattered. Is this just a preference?
> 
> Yes, just a preference.
> 
> > The tools seemed to run fine as is.
> >
> > I'll re-order it regardless.
> >
> > >
> > > > +  The pin controller node should be the child of a syscon node with the
> > > > +  required property:
> > > > +
> > > > +  - compatible:     Should be one of the following:
> > > > +                    "aspeed,ast2400-scu", "syscon", "simple-mfd"
> > > > +                    "aspeed,g4-scu", "syscon", "simple-mfd"
> > > > +
> > > > +  Refer to the the bindings described in
> > > > +  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.txt
> > > > +
> > > > +  For the AST2400 pinmux, each mux function has only one associated pin group.
> > > > +  Each group is named by its function. The following values for the function
> > > > +  and groups properties are supported:
> > > > +
> > > > +  ACPI ADC0 ADC1 ADC10 ADC11 ADC12 ADC13 ADC14 ADC15 ADC2 ADC3 ADC4 ADC5 ADC6
> > > > +  ADC7 ADC8 ADC9 BMCINT DDCCLK DDCDAT EXTRST FLACK FLBUSY FLWP GPID GPID0 GPID2
> > > > +  GPID4 GPID6 GPIE0 GPIE2 GPIE4 GPIE6 I2C10 I2C11 I2C12 I2C13 I2C14 I2C3 I2C4
> > > > +  I2C5 I2C6 I2C7 I2C8 I2C9 LPCPD LPCPME LPCRST LPCSMI MAC1LINK MAC2LINK MDIO1
> > > > +  MDIO2 NCTS1 NCTS2 NCTS3 NCTS4 NDCD1 NDCD2 NDCD3 NDCD4 NDSR1 NDSR2 NDSR3 NDSR4
> > > > +  NDTR1 NDTR2 NDTR3 NDTR4 NDTS4 NRI1 NRI2 NRI3 NRI4 NRTS1 NRTS2 NRTS3 OSCCLK
> > > > +  PWM0 PWM1 PWM2 PWM3 PWM4 PWM5 PWM6 PWM7 RGMII1 RGMII2 RMII1 RMII2 ROM16 ROM8
> > > > +  ROMCS1 ROMCS2 ROMCS3 ROMCS4 RXD1 RXD2 RXD3 RXD4 SALT1 SALT2 SALT3 SALT4 SD1
> > > > +  SD2 SGPMCK SGPMI SGPMLD SGPMO SGPSCK SGPSI0 SGPSI1 SGPSLD SIOONCTRL SIOPBI
> > > > +  SIOPBO SIOPWREQ SIOPWRGD SIOS3 SIOS5 SIOSCI SPI1 SPI1DEBUG SPI1PASSTHRU
> > > > +  SPICS1 TIMER3 TIMER4 TIMER5 TIMER6 TIMER7 TIMER8 TXD1 TXD2 TXD3 TXD4 UART6
> > > > +  USB11D1 USB11H2 USB2D1 USB2H1 USBCKI VGABIOS_ROM VGAHS VGAVS VPI18 VPI24
> > > > +  VPI30 VPO12 VPO24 WDTRST1 WDTRST2
> > >
> > > This should be a schema.
> >
> > Yeah, I covered this in my cover letter. I was hoping to get away without
> > that for the moment as this seems like the first pinctrl binding to be
> > converted, however if you insist...
> 
> That generally doesn't matter. You can assume common properties will
> have a schema and you don't need to define common constraints (like
> 'function' is a string array). You only need what is specific to this
> binding which is possible values.

Right, it just wasn't clear to me how much effort was involved. Having
hacked around a bit now I've found it's not so much.

Thanks for your feedback.

Andrew