Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds

Hi Conor,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning

Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

quoted

quoted

--- 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