On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:11:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/08/2022 15:13, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:52:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 01/08/2022 11:42, Naga Sureshkumar Relli wrote: > >>> + oneOf: > >>> + - description: Microchip's Polarfire SoC SPI controller. > >>> + const: microchip,mpfs-spi > >>> + - description: Microchip's Polarfire SoC QSPI controller. > >> Useless descriptions - they repeat compatible. Just keep it as enum and > >> skip descriptions. What value do they bring? > > Someone not familiar with the full Microchip product line might not be > > aware of the expansion of mpfs, it's not blindingly obvious. > Then it should be explained in title/description of the binding, not in > compatible. This is the usual way of providing some text description, > not for each compatible by repeating the compatible text. I'm not convinced this is a useful rule to try to enforce, and I'm not sure how well it will work if the same IP is used in several different places. It's not clear to me what the benefit is intended to be.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
