On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 02:28:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 06:33:36PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > Add YAML devicetree binding for Mikrotik RB532 PATA controller. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml | 43 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..f74880c4fd82 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/ata/mikrotek,rb532-pata.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Mikrotek RB532 PATA Controller bindings > > We have a common binding for this (ata/pata-common.yaml). Really, all > you'd gain is how to support 2 devices is defined. Should you use that? > Is CompactFlash only a single device, I don't remember. If so, is that a > limitation for the board or could 2 devices be supported? there is only one device possible. So what do I need to put into the yaml file for the driver ? Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
