On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml
>> index 3f981e897126..1ff7a5224bbc 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties:
>> - enum:
>> - microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit
>> - const: microchip,mpfs
>> + - const: microchip,mpfs-soc
>
> Doesn't the "s" in "mpfs" already stand for "soc"?
not wrong, but using mpf-soc would be confusing since "mpf" is the part
name for the non soc fpga. is it fine to just reuse "mpfs" for the dtsi
overall compatible and for the soc subsection?
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
