Hi Jisheng, Thanks for updating this series! On 5/18/23 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > In the following commits, we will support bl808 SoC which is from > Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. > > Add bouffalolab vendor prefix binding. > > Link: https://en.bouffalolab.com/ > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > index 82d39ab0231b..3566346f2f9e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml > @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ patternProperties: > description: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. > "^bosch,.*": > description: Bosch Sensortec GmbH > + "^bouffalolab,.*": > + description: Bouffalo Lab Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. Have you thought about using the "bflb" abbreviation as the vendor prefix, like you use throughout the driver code? This would save quite some space in the DTB, and seems to be the most common variant seen in the vendor SDK: bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bflb | wc -l 14364 bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalo | wc -l 1042 bouffalo_sdk$ git grep -i bouffalolab | wc -l 179 So that is what we were using for bringing up Linux and U-Boot over at https://github.com/openbouffalo. On the other hand, "bouffalolab" is certainly accurate as well, so I understand if you prefer it. And we will of course adapt to whatever gets merged, since our goal is upstreaming. The vendor code drop[1] provided only one example, "bflb-uart,uart0", which is not very helpful. Maybe you have received further information from them? What do you think? Regards, Samuel [1]: https://github.com/bouffalolab/bl808_linux/blob/main/linux-5.10.4-808/drivers/tty/serial/bflb_uart.c#L700
