Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 2020-07-28 10:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/kontron,sl28cpld.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Kontron's sl28cpld board management controller
> > >
> > > "S128CPLD" ?
> >
> > still not, its sl28cpld, think of a project/code name, not the product
> > appended with CPLD.
> >
> > > "Board Management Controller (BMC)" ?
> >
> > sounds like IPMI, which I wanted to avoid.
>
> Is there a datasheet?

No there isn't.

Then what are you working from?

Ok, there is no public datasheet. If that wasn't clear before, I'm working
for that company that also implemented that CPLD.

> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > +
> > > > +description: |
> > > > +  The board management controller may contain different IP blocks
> > > > like
> > > > +  watchdog, fan monitoring, PWM controller, interrupt controller
> > > > and a
> > > > +  GPIO controller.
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    const: kontron,sl28cpld-r1
> > >
> > > We don't usually code revision numbers in compatible strings.
> > >
> > > Is there any way to pull this from the H/W?
> >
> > No, unfortunately you can't. And I really want to keep that, in case
> > in the future there are some backwards incompatible changes.
>
> Rob,
>
> I know you reviewed this already, but you can give your opinion on
> this specifically please?  I know that we have pushed back on this in
> the past.

Oh, come one. That is an arbitrary string. "sl28cpld-r1" is the first
implementation of this. A future "sl28cpld-r2" might look completely
different and might not suite the simple MFD at all. "sl28cpld" is
a made up name - as "sl28cpld-r1" is, too.

Well that sounds bogus for a start.  I guess that's one of the
problems with trying to support programmable H/W in S/W.

What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? How
is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by the
vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor
might name it adt7412. We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the
problem here?

-michael



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux