Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:04:14 +0200
- From: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding
Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in
> Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some
> ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings.
> Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we
> should move all the system/misc reg bindings out.
>> I also see some vendor names in
> This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's
> probably a few other things.
>> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip
>> in both locations.
>> Is there any rule to choose one than the other?
> Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally.
in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory
contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding.
Is there any action required?
Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for
the yaml conversion  was this intended?
 - https://lwn.net/Articles/767723/
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list