On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2018-01-19 23:37 GMT+08:00 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2018-01-19 23:29 GMT+08:00 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Thank you and your example.
>>> I get it. I will update this document like this.
>>> - compatible: Should be "andestech,<core_name>", "andestech,nds32v3"
>>> as fallback.
>>
>> And please keep a list of supported values of "andestech,<core_name>"
>> in the DT binding document, so checkpatch can validate compatible values.
>>
>
> Thank you for reminding me this.
> I will list it like this.
>
> - compatible:
> Usage: required
> Value type: <string>
> Definition: Should be "andestech,<core_name>",
> "andestech,nds32v3" as fallback.
> Examlpes with core_names are:
> "andestech,n13"
> "andestech,n15"
> "andestech,d15"
> "andestech,n10"
> "andestech,d10"
This is still not written as a proper specification, you should not
give "examples"
but give a complete list of the available options. You could write it like:
Must contain "andestech,nds32v3" as the most generic value, in addition to
one of the following identifiers for a particular CPU core:
"andestech,n13"
"andestech,n15"
"andestech,d15"
"andestech,n10"
"andestech,d10"
It might be helpful to also list all other existing nds32v3 cores,
even those that the
current Linux port does not support them.
Arnd
