Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds

Heiko Stübner
2021-11-23T11:24:25Z

Am Dienstag, 9. November 2021, 14:04:45 CET schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > >>
> > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>
> > >> --- 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