On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote: >>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC, >>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml# >> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so >> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml > > > No offense, does it really need to be named that way? > I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :( > > The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation > for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into > thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many > other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml, > spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml, > omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first > compatible are also for the same consideration. :) We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an argument to add one more bad pattern. It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so that is not really an argument. All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you think it is an exception for you? Best regards, Krzysztof
