在2024年10月31日十月 下午2:42，Thomas Bogendoerfer写道： > 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/ Yes this is still pending. My FPGA boards are constantly breaking down so I’m on radio silence recently. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks > > 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 ] -- - Jiaxun
