Re: [PATCH v2 04/19] dt-bindings: arm: move AT91 to generic Microchip binding

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:21 PM Conor Dooley [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 06:26:44PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

quoted

On 16/12/2025 17:56:20+0100, Robert Marko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 5:29 PM Alexandre Belloni
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 15/12/2025 17:35:21+0100, Robert Marko wrote:

quoted

Create a new binding file named microchip.yaml, to which all Microchip
based devices will be moved to.

Start by moving AT91, next will be SparX-5.

Both lines of SoCs are designed by different business units and are
wildly different and while both business units are currently owned by
the same company, there are no guarantees this will stay this way so I
would simply avoid merging both.

Hi Alexandre,

The merge was requested by Conor instead of adding a new binding for LAN969x [1]

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/20251203122313.1287950-2-robert.marko@sartura.hr/

I would still keep them separate, SparX-5 is closer to what is
devicetree/bindings/mips/mscc.txt than to any atmel descended SoCs.

If you don't want the sparx-5 stuff in with the atmel bits, that's fine,
but I stand over my comments about this lan969x stuff not getting a file
of its own.
Probably that means putting it in the atmel file, alongside the lan966x
boards that are in there at the moment.

Hi Conor,
What do you think about renaming the SparX-5 binding and adding LAN969x to that?
Cause both are from the current Microchip and from the same UNG
business unit, with
probably more generations to follow.

LAN969x does not really belong in Atmel bindings to me, but I am flexible.

Regards,
Robert
-- 
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura d.d.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: robert.marko@sartura.hr
Web: www.sartura.hr