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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF31C433EF for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA87261175 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239907AbhKINHq (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:07:46 -0500 Received: from mail-ua1-f53.google.com ([209.85.222.53]:44689 "EHLO mail-ua1-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239667AbhKINHp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:07:45 -0500 Received: by mail-ua1-f53.google.com with SMTP id s13so22783966uaj.11; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vgpOPNVaeGpR0Ki0HulbC5z3/SLOjosZPp/hdlc7Fb8=; b=drohblqOx/XMzIw3YMnCrwywItsRHsvTFD1JITJ5OjhjyRln+Oc1xvi2mmO+8gW8FK SGvsNrm03/vGhZTbMzNsqNW33af+8uUFJdJXHYdeo70AcqLHbzhBlTAlFA+FEz5L8/wa Ji51/dRXLCAGy+4xzLwMIOZ3S5Y1oi19sCY5eeWqTvLpkyJao1tWHjGO4KBTj68qVWNL km5GhbDKxCNqWVbpnZaABJ5k5lZLOTVZyd06IbjWVIhem6Q3Uo2HTNLn1tCKAVYy8LW5 X/Kq4c/tNQDGE7RI1wokelu7H6achcnB66eyvFWRV+BSeZQqQJ0xFJcWEnYVq0/UFPAc kfLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zqT7VhiISgp5Di4YHaJaDfjQAnVT8+NwePRQziNeqwIMaeFDu Z4pz6sOcxKzg/4ZaXSGpvTcKM9duHvH+EA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSIHC3VI6Q0GnXUC+7/z9SV42n0fCqCCDAJOWXyHFSUkn8RnnuK/2yjvn4mPjT3wb7R6L6Ow== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:ccd:: with SMTP id g13mr12242714vst.7.1636463098833; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua1-f51.google.com (mail-ua1-f51.google.com. [209.85.222.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b129sm2457512vsc.5.2021.11.09.05.04.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua1-f51.google.com with SMTP id o26so38316213uab.5; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:04:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3a07:: with SMTP id b7mr87197501vsu.35.1636463097035; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:04:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211108150554.4457-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com> <20211108150554.4457-5-conor.dooley@microchip.com> <198eaf69-8f85-50a7-192e-5900776d044b@microchip.com> In-Reply-To: <198eaf69-8f85-50a7-192e-5900776d044b@microchip.com> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:04:45 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds To: Conor Dooley Cc: Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Rob Herring , Jassi Brar , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alessandro Zummo , Alexandre Belloni , Mark Brown , Greg KH , Lewis Hanly , Daire.McNamara@microchip.com, Atish Patra , Ivan.Griffin@microchip.com, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux I2C , linux-riscv , Linux Crypto Mailing List , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi , USB list , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Bin Meng Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Conor, On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM wrote: > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM wrote: > >> From: Conor Dooley > >> > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley > >> --- 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? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds