On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:07 PM Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > On 05/10/2018 11:58:31-0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..f788315b94fa > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: None > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Atmel AT91 device tree bindings. > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > + - Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Jean-Christophe has not been active for years, I'd mention Ludovic > instead. Will update. I generated these out of git log. I didn't use get_maintainers.pl because it seems lots of files don't have maintainers listed (other than Mark and me) and I didn't want to be it. > > > +description: | > > + Boards with a SoC of the Atmel AT91 or SMART family shall have the following > > + > > +properties: > > + $nodename: > > + const: '/' > > + compatible: > > + oneOf: > > + - items: > > + - const: atmel,at91rm9200 > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - olimex,sam9-l9260 > > + - enum: > > + - atmel,at91sam9260 > > + - atmel,at91sam9261 > > + - atmel,at91sam9263 > > + - atmel,at91sam9g20 > > + - atmel,at91sam9g45 > > + - atmel,at91sam9n12 > > + - atmel,at91sam9rl > > + - atmel,at91sam9xe > > + - const: atmel,at91sam9 > > + > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - atmel,at91sam9g15 > > + - atmel,at91sam9g25 > > + - atmel,at91sam9g35 > > + - atmel,at91sam9x25 > > + - atmel,at91sam9x35 > > + - const: atmel,at91sam9x5 > > + - const: atmel,at91sam9 > > + > > + - items: > > + - const: atmel,sama5d27 > > + - const: atmel,sama5d2 > > + - const: atmel,sama5 > > + > > + - description: Nattis v2 board with Natte v2 power board > > + items: > > + - const: axentia,nattis-2 > > + - const: axentia,natte-2 > > + - const: axentia,linea > > Shouldn't we have the board specific compatibles in a separate file to > avoid mixing everything with the SoC compatibles? You can't validate it that way. I have to say "must be compatible A, B, C and in that order" and you can't if A, B, and C are in different files. We could do board vendor files, but then we have to duplicate the SoC compatibles. I don't think there's any board vendor with enough boards to justify that. The only place I've found that the compatible lists get kind of messy is when platforms have a variable number of compatible strings. We generally have not split things this way for most platforms except i.MX which this series changes. Looks like I forgot to remove the axentia.txt for Atmel. Rob
