On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:00 AM <Nicolas.Ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 22/01/2019 at 02:07, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:57:38AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> Update the Reset Controller's binding to add new SoC compatibility string. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt > >> index 36952cc39993..badce6ef3ab3 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt > >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ Its subnodes can be: > >> RSTC Reset Controller required properties: > >> - compatible: Should be "atmel,<chip>-rstc". > >> <chip> can be "at91sam9260", "at91sam9g45", "sama5d3" or "samx7" > >> + it also can be "microchip,sam9x60-rstc" > > > > How is this related to at91sam9260-rstc? > > at91sam9260 and sam9x60 are completely different products (they share > the same core though...). I know the naming could be misleading but it > is like it is... > > > The 'x' is a wildcard? We generally avoid wildcards. > > Here, the 'x' is definitively not a wildcard nor a kind of "family" > name, it's included in the (upcoming) single product's name. > > I hope it clarifies. Yes, thanks. Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
