[PATCH v9 04/12] dt-bindings: phy: amlogic, g12a-mipi-dphy-analog: drop unneeded reg property and example

[Neil Armstrong]

On 24/11/2023 15:41, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:50:58PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> On 24/11/2023 13:36, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:41:15AM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> The amlogic,g12a-mipi-dphy-analog is a feature of the simple-mfd
>>>> amlogic,meson-axg-hhi-sysctrl system control register zone which is an
>>>> intermixed registers zone, thus it's very hard to define clear ranges for
>>>> each SoC controlled features even if possible.
>>>>
>>>> The amlogic,g12a-mipi-dphy-analog was wrongly documented as an independent
>>>> register range, which is not the reality, thus fix the bindings by dropping
>>>> the reg property now it's referred from amlogic,meson-gx-hhi-sysctrl.yaml
>>>> and documented as a subnode of amlogic,meson-axg-hhi-sysctrl.
>>>>
>>>> Also drop the unnecessary example, the top level bindings example should
>>>> be enough.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 76ab79f9726c ("dt-bindings: phy: add Amlogic G12A Analog MIPI D-PHY bindings")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org>
>>>
>>> I feel like I left a tag on this one before, but I can't remember.
>>> Perhaps I missed the conclusion to the discussion to the discussion with
>>> Rob about whether having "reg" was desirable that lead to a tag being
>>> dropped?
>>
>> I checked again and nope, not tag, but Rob's question was legitimate and I reworded
>> and clarified the commit message following your reviews.
>> On the other side you suggested a Fixes tag, which I added.
>>
>> The rewording is about why reg doesn't make sense on the nature of the memory
>> region and it doesn't make sense here like other similar nodes.
> 
> Okay, I thought that I had given you one. Perhaps I forgot to send, or
> Rob's message came in between me asking about the Fixes tag & replying
> with an Ack. Sorry about that,
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>

No problem thanks for your review.

Neil

> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.