Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:04:45 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds |
| |
Hi Conor,
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > >> > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> >> --- 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
| |