Am Dienstag, 9. November 2021, 14:04:45 CET schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven: > Hi Conor, > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:08 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/11/2021 08:34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:06 PM <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> Add mpfs-soc to clear undocumented binding warning > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/microchip.yaml > > >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties: > > >> - enum: > > >> - microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit > > >> - const: microchip,mpfs > > >> + - const: microchip,mpfs-soc > > > > > > Doesn't the "s" in "mpfs" already stand for "soc"? > > not wrong, but using mpf-soc would be confusing since "mpf" is the part > > name for the non soc fpga. is it fine to just reuse "mpfs" for the dtsi > > overall compatible and for the soc subsection? > > I really meant: what is the difference between "microchip,mpfs" and > "microchip,mpfs-soc"? Can't you just use the former? definitly agreed :-) Having the board named as compatible = "microchip,mpfs-icicle-kit", "microchip,mpfs" sounds the most sensible. As Conor wrote, "mpfs" is the name of the soc itself - with mpf being the fpga part, so that would follow what boards in other parts of the kernel do. Heiko
