On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:43 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21/03/2023 07:38, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> >
> > Can you point out where these compatible strings for mt7620 and mt7628 are?
>
> git grep
Not for *-sysc nodes. The only current one in use (from git grep):
arch/mips/ralink/mt7620.c: rt_sysc_membase =
plat_of_remap_node("ralink,mt7620a-sysc");
That's the reason I also used prefix ralink for the rest.
Does it make sense to you to maintain this one as ralink,mt7620a-sysc
and add the following with mediatek prefix?
mediatek,mt7620-sysc
mediatek,mt7628-sysc
mediatek,mt7688-sysc
That would be weird IMHO.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Thanks,
Sergio Paracuellos
