On 21/03/2023 05:34, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:15 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 20/03/2023 19:09, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: >>>>> Would mediatek,mtmips-clock.yaml make sense? >>>> >>>> More, except: >>>> 1. This is not clock, but sysc. >>> >>> Sergio, beware. >> >> I meant, that's what I understood from what Sergio said. :) > > Yes, you understood properly. I will use 'sysc' instead. > >> >>> >>>> 2. mips sounds redundant. Do you have rt2xxx and mt7xxx chips which are ARM? >>> >>> All of the SoCs, RTXXXX, MT7620, MT7621, MT7628, MT7688 are MIPS. So I >>> decided to call this platform MTMIPS as I've seen MediaTek use this on >>> other projects like U-Boot. This is what I did on my pinctrl patch >>> series as well. >> >> Ah, but indeed there are newer Mediatek MT6xxx and MT8xxx SoCs which are >> ARM, so mediatek,mtmips-sysc would work. > > I can use 'mediatek,mtmips-sysc.yaml' as the name but compatibles will > start with ralink. There are already some existent compatibles for > mt762x already having ralink as prefix, so to be coherent ralink > should be maintained as prefix. The compatibles I mentioned start already with mediatek, so why do you want to introduce incorrect vendor name for these? Best regards, Krzysztof
