Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld

Michael Walle
2020-07-28T09:06:06Z

Am 2020-07-28 10:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/kontron,sl28cpld.yaml#
>> > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +title: Kontron's sl28cpld board management controller
>> > > >
>> > > > "S128CPLD" ?
>> > >
>> > > still not, its sl28cpld, think of a project/code name, not the product
>> > > appended with CPLD.
>> > >
>> > > > "Board Management Controller (BMC)" ?
>> > >
>> > > sounds like IPMI, which I wanted to avoid.
>> >
>> > Is there a datasheet?
>>
>> No there isn't.
>
> Then what are you working from?

Ok, there is no public datasheet. If that wasn't clear before, I'm
working
for that company that also implemented that CPLD.

>> > > > > +maintainers:
>> > > > > + - Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +description: |
>> > > > > + The board management controller may contain different IP blocks
>> > > > > like
>> > > > > + watchdog, fan monitoring, PWM controller, interrupt controller
>> > > > > and a
>> > > > > + GPIO controller.
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +properties:
>> > > > > + compatible:
>> > > > > + const: kontron,sl28cpld-r1
>> > > >
>> > > > We don't usually code revision numbers in compatible strings.
>> > > >
>> > > > Is there any way to pull this from the H/W?
>> > >
>> > > No, unfortunately you can't. And I really want to keep that, in case
>> > > in the future there are some backwards incompatible changes.
>> >
>> > Rob,
>> >
>> > I know you reviewed this already, but you can give your opinion on
>> > this specifically please? I know that we have pushed back on this in
>> > the past.
>>
>> Oh, come one. That is an arbitrary string. "sl28cpld-r1" is the first
>> implementation of this. A future "sl28cpld-r2" might look completely
>> different and might not suite the simple MFD at all. "sl28cpld" is
>> a made up name - as "sl28cpld-r1" is, too.
>
> Well that sounds bogus for a start. I guess that's one of the
> problems with trying to support programmable H/W in S/W.

What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? How
is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by the
vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor
might name it adt7412. We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the
problem here?

-michael