On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 01:31:34PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 03/08/2022 15:29, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:11:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> 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. > First, the description here is really not adding any useful information. > "description: Microchip's Polarfire SoC SPI controller." > Microchip - already in comaptible > SPI controller - already in compatible and in device description > The only useful piece could be extending pfs to Polarfire SoC. That was the main bit I was thinking of TBH. > into double-sized oneOf with additional descriptions each one explaining > "mpfs". > oneOf: > - description: Microchip's Polarfire SoC SPI controller. > const: microchip,mpfs-spi If the YAML binding format is hard to read when people add comments that does seem like something that should be addressed on the format side rather than the binding side TBH. > Just keep it simple and small. We all have too much code to look at... Excessively clear documentation hasn't typically been our issue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
