Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: Add new board description for MicroBlaze V

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 07/11/2023 12:09, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/6/23 18:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:53:40PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> MicroBlaze V is new AMD/Xilinx soft-core 32bit RISC-V processor IP.
>>> It is hardware compatible with classic MicroBlaze processor. Processor can
>>> be used with standard AMD/Xilinx IPs including interrupt controller and
>>> timer.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml      | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Bindings for SoCs (and by extension boards with them) usually go to in
>> $arch/$vendor.yaml not into soc/$vendor/$vendor.yaml. Why is this any
>> different?
> 
> I actually found it based on tracking renesas.yaml which describes one of risc-v 
> board. No problem to move it under bindings/riscv/
> 
>>
>>>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..21adf28756fa
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/amd/amd.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: AMD Platforms
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> +  - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>
>>> +
>>> +description: |
>>> +  AMD boards with MicroBlaze V SOC
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> +  $nodename:
>>> +    const: '/'
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    oneOf:
>>> +      - description: AMD MicroBlaze V
>>> +        items:
>>> +          - const: amd,mbv
>>
>> You don't actually list any boards here, but instead permit having only
>> the SoC compatible and no board one. The SoC compatible is also
>> incredibly generic. Personally I don't think this binding makes any
>> sense as it appears to exist as a catch all for anything using your
>> new cores in any combination.
> 
> I think I need to define any string for compatibility because it is standard 
> property. Because this is soft core it can be added to any board with AMD/Xilinx 
> chip. I don't have really an option to list all boards.

Why? Either there is a product with this soft-core or there is not. It
cannot be both.

> 
> I am happy to change it to something else but not sure to what.

Alone this compatible does not bring you anything.

Best regards,
Krzysztof