On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 09:13:57AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hi Jiaxun, > > > 在2024年10月29日十月 下午4:11，Jiaxun Yang写道： > >> 在2024年10月29日十月 下午12:21，Aleksandar Rikalo写道： > >> [...] > >>> > >>>> Is this property applicable for all MIPS vendors? There is no vendor > >>>> prefix here, so this is generic for this architecture, right? > >> > >> I'd say the best vendor prefix is mti in this case. > >> > >> CM3 IP block is supplied by MIPS Technology, it is not a part of MIPS > >> architecture spec. > > > > I just tried to revise this problem and I think a better approach would > > be picking my CM binding [1] patch and add this as a property to CM binding. > > > > You don't need to pick rest of that series, this binding alone is sufficient, > > and it's already being reviewed. > > > > Thanks > > [1]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240612-cm_probe-v2-5-a5b55440563c@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I had a look at your series and it seems that all the issues raised were > solved, so why wasn't it merged? https://lore.kernel.org/all/2xkut5pyzk4b4ugl4ku72y4rfqrfsoxj4aww2jwlgkc3lmd464@zwf773fr7fpq/ so it's still unclear to me, whether there is something to fix or not. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
