| Message ID | 20211108150554.4457-5-conor.dooley@microchip.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Update the icicle kit device tree | expand |
On 08/11/2021 16:05, conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote: > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning What warnings? There is no such compatible used. > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > index 3f981e897126..1ff7a5224bbc 100644 > --- 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 > > additionalProperties: true > > Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Conor, On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > index 3f981e897126..1ff7a5224bbc 100644 > --- 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"? 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
On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Hi Conor, > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >> >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning >> >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml >> index 3f981e897126..1ff7a5224bbc 100644 >> --- 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? > > 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 >
Hi Conor, On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > >> > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.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@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
Am Dienstag, 9. November 2021, 14:04:45 CET schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven: > Hi Conor, > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > >> > > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.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? definitly agreed :-) Having the board named as compatible = "microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit", "microchip,mpfs" sounds the most sensible. As Conor wrote, "mpfs" is the name of the soc itself - with mpf being the fpga part, so that would follow what boards in other parts of the kernel do. Heiko
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml index 3f981e897126..1ff7a5224bbc 100644 --- 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 additionalProperties: true