Hi, Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring: > 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. in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding. Is there any action required? Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for the yaml conversion [1] was this intended? [1] - https://lwn.net/Articles/767723/ > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
