On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? If there's a better location based on class/function, then moving them would be nice. > Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for > the yaml conversion [1] was this intended? Yes, I'm not planning to convert all bindings for everyone myself. Rob
