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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E08C43441 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:59:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE9A214C4 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kyhiloYD" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DBE9A214C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727362AbeJKCXI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:23:08 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:41416 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726734AbeJKCXI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:23:08 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com (mail-qt1-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 766DC2150C; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:59:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1539197979; bh=NTNwFHW4NnHcGIdJs7M1XEYgEubdydYqRG942JgEUQQ=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=kyhiloYDXtw+/k7aY8KJeBlwxS4PIV9xurX4pN0FTfquuJDl+oLjUSxg2IpgJphk3 WT5Pnt+YpCkw+mTn4Hrvyamrdl/Ee4qxEcIpx9SSeyDn50ToXTjyXFoRNZ3Ayyxf8C QtuZ9RoauGKLWzwJL1Tbd+WdA0TeraiHm8SIrTwA= Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id o17-v6so6977588qtr.1; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojz8oeFNUzM5wVOjzBxhSKxqPtTuob/oetPsL9Fgvf2KOQbk6ia QhziIOA+nc6STy7wEhlwNgZteelloEqj/UPyhw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61LVm6+gbDvX380AsowmoxBOs1DMwji4+grw8r3kSOW3luirD/f0/AyFEU7uC5N9D4j22MSwrh3N1803cwwWm4= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d4e5:: with SMTP id y34mr14268306qvh.106.1539197978661; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> In-Reply-To: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:59:27 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding To: Stefan Wahren Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Frank Rowand , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" , Florian Fainelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi, > > Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/arm/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic > > Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some > > ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings. > > > > Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we > > should move all the system/misc reg bindings out. > > > > [,,,] > > > >> I also see some vendor names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/soc/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte > > This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's > > probably a few other things. > > > >> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip > >> in both locations. > >> > >> Is there any rule to choose one than the other? > > Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally. > > in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory > contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding. > > Is there any action required? If there's a better location based on class/function, then moving them would be nice. > Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for > the yaml conversion [1] was this intended? Yes, I'm not planning to convert all bindings for everyone myself. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:59:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Wahren Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Frank Rowand , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" , Florian Fainelli List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi, > > Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/arm/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic > > Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some > > ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings. > > > > Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we > > should move all the system/misc reg bindings out. > > > > [,,,] > > > >> I also see some vendor names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/soc/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte > > This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's > > probably a few other things. > > > >> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip > >> in both locations. > >> > >> Is there any rule to choose one than the other? > > Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally. > > in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory > contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding. > > Is there any action required? If there's a better location based on class/function, then moving them would be nice. > Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for > the yaml conversion [1] was this intended? Yes, I'm not planning to convert all bindings for everyone myself. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:59:27 -0500 Subject: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding In-Reply-To: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> References: <93cd9c43-6fe3-c691-005b-e27cf101c7d6@i2se.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi, > > Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/arm/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic > > Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some > > ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings. > > > > Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we > > should move all the system/misc reg bindings out. > > > > [,,,] > > > >> I also see some vendor names in > >> Documentation/device/bindings/soc/ > >> > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx > >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte > > This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's > > probably a few other things. > > > >> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip > >> in both locations. > >> > >> Is there any rule to choose one than the other? > > Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally. > > in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory > contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding. > > Is there any action required? If there's a better location based on class/function, then moving them would be nice. > Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for > the yaml conversion [1] was this intended? Yes, I'm not planning to convert all bindings for everyone myself. Rob