On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or > "vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a > readme file documenting preferred policy. Is this all I needed to do to stop this from QCom? </sarcasm> This convention is not QCom specific, though the error mostly is. Perhaps this should be documented generically. > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > + > +Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention > +========================================== > +1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format: > + :: > + > + qcom,SoC-IP > + > + For example: > + :: > + > + qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon Assuming the list of possible SoCs was maintained, you could make this a schema. Though there might be false positives. > + > +2. When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format > + in the existing binding, even if it contradicts the above. > -- > 2.34.1 > >
