[2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell IAP140

Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/iap140.txt | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/iap140.txt

Hello,

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:

> + - compatible :  must contain "mrvl,iap140"

Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible
strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell".
Probably you should use that instead for new bindings?

Thanks,

Thomas

Hi,

Am 20.02.2017 um 13:56 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> 
>> + - compatible :  must contain "mrvl,iap140"
> 
> Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible
> strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell".
> Probably you should use that instead for new bindings?

I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as
MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix
becomes mrvl. Why not here? Would be good to understand for other
pending vendors such as Actions Semi.

Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication
Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't
verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist
and we should add a second compatible string here?

Thanks,
Andreas

[0] http://investor.marvell.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=120802&p=irol-irhome

Hello,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:16:13 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:

> I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as
> MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix
> becomes mrvl. Why not here?

Not sure why, but as of today, we have a mix of "mrvl" and "marvell" in
the tree, and "marvell" is the one official listed in
vendor-prefixes.txt.

> Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication
> Processors section has disappeared from marvell.com, so I couldn't
> verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist
> and we should add a second compatible string here?

I don't have an opinion on this because I'm not familiar with this
family of Marvell SoCs. However, the only thing I would recommend is
that you send a patch to update Documentation/arm/Marvell/README to
document this PXA1908/IAP140 thing. This is particularly important
since this document mentions PXA1908 already.

Thanks!

Thomas