On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 03:39:39PM -0600, Anirudh Srinivasan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 12:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 07/02/2026 15:54, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > >>>>> suggests picking a more generic name in this case, so isn't
> > >>>>> "tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm" okay for that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, because I don't want to keep guessing this. The docs clearly ask you
> > >>>> to post complete bindings, which now became less-complete, but fine.
> > >
> > > I don't think it actually is "less complete" without the other
> > > compatibles. The non-rcpu prcms function differently to the rcpu prcm
> > > (they seem to be consumers of clocks that the rcpu produces) and are not
> > > supported by the drivers in this series. They're different devices and I
> > > think should only be documented when support for them comes along. v4
> > > had problems that were caused by trying to document them without
> > > actually having driver support figured out.
> >
> > It's fine without them, but then let's just name the file after that
> > only sole compatible.
> 
> Okay, thank you for clarifying this. I will just add one compatible
> and name the bindings file based on that one.
> 
> In the future when I add the remaining compatibles (and driver for
> them), should I add them to this same bindings file? Can I rename the
> file to have a more generic name then? Is renaming bindings files
> okay? Or is this something to worry about for later?

Nah, in the future it just keeps the name of one compatible.