On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:07 PM Alexandre Belloni
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hello,

On 05/10/2018 11:58:31-0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f788315b94fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: None
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Atmel AT91 device tree bindings.
+
+maintainers:
+  - Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
+  - Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>

Jean-Christophe has not been active for years, I'd mention Ludovic
instead.

Will update. I generated these out of git log. I didn't use
get_maintainers.pl because it seems lots of files don't have
maintainers listed (other than Mark and me) and I didn't want to be
it.

quoted

+description: |
+  Boards with a SoC of the Atmel AT91 or SMART family shall have the following
+
+properties:
+  $nodename:
+    const: '/'
+  compatible:
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - const: atmel,at91rm9200
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - olimex,sam9-l9260
+          - enum:
+              - atmel,at91sam9260
+              - atmel,at91sam9261
+              - atmel,at91sam9263
+              - atmel,at91sam9g20
+              - atmel,at91sam9g45
+              - atmel,at91sam9n12
+              - atmel,at91sam9rl
+              - atmel,at91sam9xe
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9
+
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - atmel,at91sam9g15
+              - atmel,at91sam9g25
+              - atmel,at91sam9g35
+              - atmel,at91sam9x25
+              - atmel,at91sam9x35
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9x5
+          - const: atmel,at91sam9
+
+      - items:
+          - const: atmel,sama5d27
+          - const: atmel,sama5d2
+          - const: atmel,sama5
+
+      - description: Nattis v2 board with Natte v2 power board
+        items:
+          - const: axentia,nattis-2
+          - const: axentia,natte-2
+          - const: axentia,linea

Shouldn't we have the board specific compatibles in a separate file to
avoid mixing everything with the SoC compatibles?

You can't validate it that way. I have to say "must be compatible A,
B, C and in that order" and you can't if A, B, and C are in different
files. We could do board vendor files, but then we have to duplicate
the SoC compatibles. I don't think there's any board vendor with
enough boards to justify that. The only place I've found that the
compatible lists get kind of messy is when platforms have a variable
number of compatible strings.

We generally have not split things this way for most platforms except
i.MX which this series changes. Looks like I forgot to remove the
axentia.txt for Atmel.

Rob