LAN966x SoC supports 3 QSPI controllers. Each of them support
data and clock frequency upto 100Mhz DDR and QUAD protocol.
Signed-off-by: Kavyasree Kotagiri <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
index 1d493add4053..100d6e7f2748 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
- microchip,sam9x60-qspi
- microchip,sama7g5-qspi
- microchip,sama7g5-ospi
+ - microchip,lan966x-qspi
reg:
items:
--
2.17.1
On 07/04/2022 12:54, Kavyasree Kotagiri wrote:
> LAN966x SoC supports 3 QSPI controllers. Each of them support
> data and clock frequency upto 100Mhz DDR and QUAD protocol.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kavyasree Kotagiri <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
> index 1d493add4053..100d6e7f2748 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
> - microchip,sam9x60-qspi
> - microchip,sama7g5-qspi
> - microchip,sama7g5-ospi
> + - microchip,lan966x-qspi
Expect the comment you got about wildcard, please also put it in
alphabetical order. As you can check, the other entries are ordered.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:24:20PM +0530, Kavyasree Kotagiri wrote:
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
> - microchip,sam9x60-qspi
> - microchip,sama7g5-qspi
> - microchip,sama7g5-ospi
> + - microchip,lan966x-qspi
Generally DT compatibles should be for specific SoCs rather than having
wildcards in them, even if that means you have to list a lot of SoCs.
Having used wildcards in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to
continue adding them!
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > + - microchip,lan966x-qspi
> > Generally DT compatibles should be for specific SoCs rather than having
> > wildcards in them, even if that means you have to list a lot of SoCs.
> > Having used wildcards in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to
> > continue adding them!
> The subject should also be prefixed with "dt-bindings: ".
I tend to complain about people doing that.
> Mark, I did a git log on
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml and all the
> subjects are without "dt-bindings:" although the original patch was with
> that prefix [1]. Is that intended?
Yes.
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
> > - microchip,sam9x60-qspi
> > - microchip,sama7g5-qspi
> > - microchip,sama7g5-ospi
> > + - microchip,lan966x-qspi
>
> Generally DT compatibles should be for specific SoCs rather than having
> wildcards in them, even if that means you have to list a lot of SoCs.
> Having used wildcards in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to
> continue adding them!
The subject should also be prefixed with "dt-bindings: ".
Mark, I did a git log on
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml and all the
subjects are without "dt-bindings:" although the original patch was with
that prefix [1]. Is that intended?
-michael
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/[email protected]/
Am 2022-04-07 13:31, schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> The subject should also be prefixed with "dt-bindings: ".
>
> I tend to complain about people doing that.
After all it is mentioned to use that prefix in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst. I try to
remember when submitting SPI related bindings.
-michael
On 07/04/2022 13:41, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2022-04-07 13:31, schrieb Mark Brown:
>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> The subject should also be prefixed with "dt-bindings: ".
>>
>> I tend to complain about people doing that.
>
> After all it is mentioned to use that prefix in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst. I try to
> remember when submitting SPI related bindings.
From my point of view, the dt-bindings prefix is still expected, just
after "spi:" (and other Marks' subsystems), because that's I am
filtering the bindings.
Your submissions had the prefix in wrong place, this one patch does not
have it all. :(
Best regards,
Krzysztof