Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755467AbdCJRlq (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:46 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60700 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755049AbdCJRlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:41:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:40:45 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Dongdong Liu , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Gabriele Paoloni , Zhou Wang , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Bad DT binding (hisi-pcie-almost-ecam) Message-ID: <20170310174045.GB24571@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 30 I've just spotted commit: a2ec1996098c7da0 ("PCI: hisi: Add DT almost-ECAM support for Hip06/Hip07 host controllers") ... which went in for v4.11-rc1. I hadn't seen this until now, and as far as I can tell this never went to the devicetree list. The commit adds the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam", which goes against the usual DT conventions, and is non-sensical in that it describes the IP based on what it isn't. This binding shouldn't have gone in as-is, and we should fix it before v4.11. The binding states that this IP is found in Hip06 and Hip07. For these cases we'd usually take the name of the first implementation, e.g. something like "hisilicon,hip06-pcie", which can be used as a fallback in the compatible list if reused in subsequent SoC generations. I also see that "hisilicon,hip06-pcie" already exists, so I'm even more suspicious. What exactly is the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam" binding trying to describe? Is it a different IP also found on Hip06, or is it a new binding for the same IP? Thanks, Mark.