On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 02:28:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:

quoted

Add YAML devicetree binding for Mikrotik RB532 PATA controller.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
---
 .../bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f74880c4fd82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Mikrotek RB532 PATA Controller bindings

We have a common binding for this (ata/pata-common.yaml). Really, all 
you'd gain is how to support 2 devices is defined. Should you use that? 
Is CompactFlash only a single device, I don't remember. If so, is that a 
limitation for the board or could 2 devices be supported?

there is only one device possible. So what do I need to put into the
yaml file for the driver ?  

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]