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

From: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>
To: Conor Dooley <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Lewis Hanly <Lewis.Hanly@microchip.com>,
	Daire.McNamara@microchip.com, Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	Ivan.Griffin@microchip.com,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux I2C <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
	USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
	Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:24:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2736394.7QafvNDC63@diego> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUs7UnADr2SfHBD4sGs3_giR0cmXnz=6qa4iAP1reDtgA@mail.gmail.com>

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