Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] Documentation/dts: Add bindings for QIXIS FPGA controller found on FSL boards

From: Li Yang <leoli@freescale.com>
To: Sharma Bhupesh <bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Singh Jaiprakash <jaiprakash.singh@freescale.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"marc.zyngier@arm.com" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	"Catalin.Marinas@arm.com" <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>,
	"bhupesh.linux@gmail.com" <bhupesh.linux@gmail.com>,
	"linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] Documentation/dts: Add bindings for QIXIS FPGA controller found on FSL boards
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:12:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADRPPNQFxqNqgvrL9eVhaDX-SYRJxmGDd87zu_XHDHY6afiu3g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0301MB1303E56B5462BCD0C77C7E4D82570@BY1PR0301MB1303.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Sharma Bhupesh
<bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com> wrote:
>> From: pku.leo@gmail.com [mailto:pku.leo@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 10:27 PM
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Bhupesh Sharma
>> <bhupesh.sharma@freescale.com> wrote:
>> > This patch adds bindings for QIXIS FPGA controller found on FSL boards.
>>
>> A general comment: when you are updating the device tree bindings.
>> You should cc the devicetree@vger.kernel.org mailing list.
>>
>> >
>> > Some Freescale boards like LS2080AQDS/LS2080ARDB have an on-board
>> > FPGA/CPLD connected to the IFC controller. The bindings specified in
>> > this patch cater to those on-board FPGA/CPLD controllers.
>>
>> We already have the binding defined in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/board.txt.  We probably
>> should just move it to a more generic location.
>
> Consolidation of powerpc and ARM bindings is something that needs to be
> targeted by a separate patch-series, perhaps in future.
>
> There are a number of duplications that can be looked into, but I don't
> think this patchset should depend on that.

There might be some duplication, but we shouldn't be adding more.  :)
I would rather you directly updating that file than creating a new
file even though the original one was in a wrong directory.

Regards,
Leo