On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in > Documentation/device/bindings/arm/ > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings. Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we should move all the system/misc reg bindings out. [,,,] > I also see some vendor names in > Documentation/device/bindings/soc/ > > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx > ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's probably a few other things. > Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip > in both locations. > > Is there any rule to choose one than the other? Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally. Rob
