From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C4BC433F5 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:24:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=xN2vXdoYo7FBWOnf9+F/miEfVr7rfmCaxFY2ixiQTkI=; b=Djb6oZmWvKqpFc 4dkBwEnxsMBzMOab4afuEle+86J4UhiqpB/0DC/MaoBbdsuySktowfdv/YkUb1HGC25Q3FqUbJD/e mR3YdxqGNtYpkiD09aQYqw1K6MWG6rGhvyVGpObgnsyczk7r9D0hUTmJ8Y7tcFo7xKViQilABMKkv TljYV8VpZeP+XfM+9IVaWTbL2FFOP5fS0+ijmJQzJCsRzUVtz0TZv5STyKHyuUCdGmVq+UI5tOSx3 IG/bKaim0woFPu+mMuDyvhNvN7aPR+svVdSWxPEGdlrQ+QcseIFoNF3CPQUjKuASN42xlZZtB5t1m kJO/wL/B/f74EiLQzctQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mpTuQ-001tVC-RQ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:24:22 +0000 Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([185.11.138.130]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mpTuM-001tSR-QH for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:24:21 +0000 Received: from ip5f5b2004.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([95.91.32.4] helo=diego.localnet) by gloria.sntech.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mpTuB-0008Cw-Pk; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:24:07 +0100 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Conor Dooley , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Cc: Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Rob Herring , Jassi Brar , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alessandro Zummo , Alexandre Belloni , Mark Brown , Greg KH , Lewis Hanly , Daire.McNamara@microchip.com, Atish Patra , Ivan.Griffin@microchip.com, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux I2C , linux-riscv , Linux Crypto Mailing List , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi , USB list , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Bin Meng , Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: <2736394.7QafvNDC63@diego> In-Reply-To: References: <20211108150554.4457-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com> <198eaf69-8f85-50a7-192e-5900776d044b@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211123_032418_947853_3206B13E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.38 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Am Dienstag, 9. November 2021, 14:04:45 CET schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven: > Hi Conor, > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM wrote: > > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM wrote: > > >> From: Conor Dooley > > >> > > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley > > > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > > >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties: > > >> - enum: > > >> - microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit > > >> - const: microchip,mpfs > > >> + - const: microchip,mpfs-soc > > > > > > Doesn't the "s" in "mpfs" already stand for "soc"? > > not wrong, but using mpf-soc would be confusing since "mpf" is the part > > name for the non soc fpga. is it fine to just reuse "mpfs" for the dtsi > > overall compatible and for the soc subsection? > > I really meant: what is the difference between "microchip,mpfs" and > "microchip,mpfs-soc"? Can't you just use the former? definitly agreed :-) Having the board named as compatible = "microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit", "microchip,mpfs" sounds the most sensible. As Conor wrote, "mpfs" is the name of the soc itself - with mpf being the fpga part, so that would follow what boards in other parts of the kernel do. Heiko _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv