Re: [PATCH 04/13] dt-bindings: riscv: update microchip polarfire binds

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds