On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Michael Walle wrote: > Am 2020-07-28 10:56, schrieb Lee Jones: > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/kontron,sl28cpld.yaml# > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +title: Kontron's sl28cpld board management controller > > > > > > > > > > > > "S128CPLD" ? > > > > > > > > > > still not, its sl28cpld, think of a project/code name, not the product > > > > > appended with CPLD. > > > > > > > > > > > "Board Management Controller (BMC)" ? > > > > > > > > > > sounds like IPMI, which I wanted to avoid. > > > > > > > > Is there a datasheet? > > > > > > No there isn't. > > > > Then what are you working from? > > Ok, there is no public datasheet. If that wasn't clear before, I'm working > for that company that also implemented that CPLD. No, that wasn't clear. You said there was no datasheet. > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > + - Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +description: | > > > > > > > + The board management controller may contain different IP blocks > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > + watchdog, fan monitoring, PWM controller, interrupt controller > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > + GPIO controller. > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +properties: > > > > > > > + compatible: > > > > > > > + const: kontron,sl28cpld-r1 > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't usually code revision numbers in compatible strings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any way to pull this from the H/W? > > > > > > > > > > No, unfortunately you can't. And I really want to keep that, in case > > > > > in the future there are some backwards incompatible changes. > > > > > > > > Rob, > > > > > > > > I know you reviewed this already, but you can give your opinion on > > > > this specifically please? I know that we have pushed back on this in > > > > the past. > > > > > > Oh, come one. That is an arbitrary string. "sl28cpld-r1" is the first > > > implementation of this. A future "sl28cpld-r2" might look completely > > > different and might not suite the simple MFD at all. "sl28cpld" is > > > a made up name - as "sl28cpld-r1" is, too. > > > > Well that sounds bogus for a start. I guess that's one of the > > problems with trying to support programmable H/W in S/W. > > What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? > How is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by > the vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor > might name it adt7412. Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus. So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually arbitrary. That's a good start. > We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here? Do you though? So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device? The name that is quoted from the (private) datasheet? Because looking at the implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for revision identification. Which if true, is not usually allowed and warrants intervention by Rob. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
