On 06/09/2023 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/03/2023 03:18, Brad Larson wrote: >> On 06/03/2023 09:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 06/03/2023 05:07, Brad Larson wrote: >>>>> Support the AMD Pensando SoC Controller which is a SPI connected device >>>>> providing a miscellaneous set of essential board control/status registers. >>>>> This device is present in all Pensando SoC based designs. >>>>> ... >>>>> .../bindings/soc/amd/amd,pensando-ctrl.yaml | 60 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd,pensando-ctrl.yaml >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd,pensando-ctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd,pensando-ctrl.yaml >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..36694077b2e6 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd,pensando-ctrl.yaml >>>> >>>> Your subject suggests this is pensando-elbasr but you write everywhere >>>> pensando-ctrl. Confusing. Pick one. >>> >>> Actually pensando-ctrl is for sure not correct, because it misses the >>> name of the SoC (you call it everywhere "elba"). >> >> The reason I dropped elba as part of the name is this driver and its associated >> SPI attached device (cpld or fpga depending on the board design) will be used >> across a series of SoCs starting with Elba. Implying its Elba specific is misleading. > > Compatibles must be specific. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42 > If this is SoC part it must match SoC. What is misleading in this? Why > Pensando is different than all other SoCs (I am really getting tired > everytime asking why people think their solution is special)? > > If this is not part of the SoC, then your commit msg is misleading. > Maybe bindings as well, so rework it. Yes, changed it back to 'amd,pensando-elba-ctrl' and fixed the dts, driver and commit message. Regards, Brad
