[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUs7UnADr2SfHBD4sGs3_giR0cmXnz=6qa4iAP1reDtgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:04:45 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Conor Dooley <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lewis Hanly <Lewis.Hanly@...rochip.com>,
Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com, Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
Ivan.Griffin@...rochip.com,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Bin Meng <bin.meng@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds
Hi Conor,
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
> >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >>
> >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.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?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists