Hi Andreas, On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Andreas Färber wrote: > Hi, > > Am 27.02.2017 um 03:48 schrieb Alex Elder: > > On 02/26/2017 07:24 PM, Jiancheng Xue wrote: > >> On 2017/2/26 9:32, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>> Am 22.02.2017 um 09:38 schrieb Jiancheng Xue: > >>>> Add bindings for HiSilicon hi3798cv200 SoC and Poplar Board. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jiancheng Xue <xuejiancheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt | 4 ++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt > >>>> index f1c1e21..1fd3dd7 100644 > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt > >>>> @@ -4,6 +4,10 @@ Hi3660 SoC > >>>> Required root node properties: > >>>> - compatible = "hisilicon,hi3660"; > >>>> > >>>> +Hi3798cv200 Poplar Board > >>>> +Required root node properties: > >>>> + - compatible = "hisilicon,hi3798cv200-poplar", "hisilicon,hi3798cv200"; > >>> > >>> Please remember to CC previous reviewers. > >>> > >> Sorry for that. > >> > >>> This still looks wrong: Why is this not "hisilicon,poplar" if you choose > >>> against "tocoding,poplar"? > >> > >> I didn't think it was very important thing whether the compatbile string contained > >> a preceding SoC name or not. I just referred to the hikey board and some other > >> HiSilicon boards. I wanted to keep using the same rule with them. > > > > The way Jiancheng defined this was consistent with the pattern > > used for all other definitions of platforms found in this > > documentation file. Why make this one different? > > I am not familiar with other HiSilicon DTs but rather with several other > vendors' DTs. This seems inconsistent with the rest. The only other one > with SoC names in the board compatible I know of is i.MX6, where there's > variations between single, dual and quad versions. I've not checked all the subarchs, but STMicroelectronics chipsets I've been involved with upstreaming also use <soc>-<board> compatible strings. For STi b2120 board it could actually have STiH410 or STiH407 SoC. But others like stih418-b2199 and stih410-b2260 only have one SoC. Also stm32 arch does the same thing. Just having a quick look around arch/arm64/ as above examples were arch/arm/ and I see quite a few other examples as well e.g. compatible = "mediatek,mt6755-evb", "mediatek,mt6755"; compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-evb", "mediatek,mt8173"; compatible = "fsl,ls1043a-qds", "fsl,ls1043a"; compatible = "samsung,exynos7-espresso", "samsung,exynos7"; compatible = "zte,zx296718-evb", "zte,zx296718"; compatible = "lge,lg1313-ref", "lge,lg1313"; compatible = "rockchip,rk3368-evb-act8846", "rockchip,rk3368"; Some subarchs have a mix within them, which maybe due to the SoC also being part of the board name on some reference boards. But both ways seem to be used in the kernel. So IMHO it would be better to see consistency in arch/arm64/hisilicon* even though there is not consistency across all of arch/arm64/* and arch/arm/*. regards, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
