On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

2018-01-19 23:37 GMT+08:00 Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2018-01-19 23:29 GMT+08:00 Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Thank you and your example.
I get it. I will update this document like this.
- compatible: Should be "andestech,<core_name>", "andestech,nds32v3"
as fallback.

And please keep a list of supported values of "andestech,<core_name>"
in the DT binding document, so checkpatch can validate compatible values.

Thank you for reminding me this.
I will list it like this.

- compatible:
        Usage: required
        Value type: <string>
        Definition: Should be "andestech,<core_name>",
"andestech,nds32v3" as fallback.
        Examlpes with core_names are:
        "andestech,n13"
        "andestech,n15"
        "andestech,d15"
        "andestech,n10"
        "andestech,d10"

This is still not written as a proper specification, you should not
give "examples"
but give a complete list of the available options. You could write it like:

Must contain "andestech,nds32v3" as the most generic value, in addition to
one of the following identifiers for a particular CPU core:
         "andestech,n13"
         "andestech,n15"
         "andestech,d15"
         "andestech,n10"
         "andestech,d10"

It might be helpful to also list all other existing nds32v3 cores,
even those that the
current Linux port does not support them.

      Arnd