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

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2020-07-28 11:20, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> 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.
> 
> Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus.
> 
> So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually
> arbitrary.  That's a good start.
> 
>> We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here?
> 
> Do you though?  So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device?  The name
> that is quoted from the (private) datasheet?  Because looking at the
> implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though
> you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for
> revision identification.  Which if true, is not usually allowed and
> warrants intervention by Rob.

Revisions would imply backwards compatibility, correct? I'm not
aming for that. Yes, I appended that "-r1" (in the lack of any
better suffix) because I didn't want to tie the base name to the
simple MFD, just in case. And isn't that the whole purpose of
the compatible string? To connect a driver to a piece of
hardware?

But even here, I don't care anymore. I strip it again. So future
incarnations which aren't compatible with simple mfd will need
another name. So what.

-michael