On 05/06/2023 at 09:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, at 08:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 03/06/2023 22:02, Varshini Rajendran wrote:

quoted

Add sam9x60 compatible string support in the schema file

Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran <redacted>
---
  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/atmel,at91rm9200-tcb.yaml  | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/atmel,at91rm9200-tcb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/atmel,at91rm9200-tcb.yaml
index a46411149571..c70c77a5e8e5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/atmel,at91rm9200-tcb.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/microchip/atmel,at91rm9200-tcb.yaml

@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
            - atmel,at91rm9200-tcb
            - atmel,at91sam9x5-tcb
            - atmel,sama5d2-tcb
+          - microchip,sam9x60-tcb

No wildcards.

sam9x60 is the actual name of the chip, it's no wildcard. For sam9x70,
sam9x72 and sam9x75, I think using sam9x7 as the compatible string
is probably fine, as long as they are actually the same chip. Again,
the 'x' in there is not a wildcard but part of the name.

Yes, exactly Arnd, for those two SoC, 'x' is not a wildcard.

Best regards,
   Nicolas


-- 
Nicolas Ferre