Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:31:33 -0800 (PST)
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Megan Wachs <megan@sifive.com>,
        Wesley Terpstra <wesley@sifive.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: sifive: describe sifive-blocks versioning
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJgt3VxHLcxY54Ojpqz_bLwGSySZ9meowgy6pnLPdXuLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1812070624180.16511@viisi.sifive.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1811211704520.16271@viisi.sifive.com> <20181207000104.GA10814@bogus> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1812061645070.29609@viisi.sifive.com> <CAL_JsqJgt3VxHLcxY54Ojpqz_bLwGSySZ9meowgy6pnLPdXuLQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Rob Herring wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:46 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:06:56PM -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > >
> > > >  .../sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt    | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt
> > >
> > > Use the path that was suggested.
> >
> > Could you remind me which one that is?
> 
> In this thread: bindings/riscv/sifive/

SiFive also produces ARM-based SoCs.  Some of those ARM SoCs may use these 
IP blocks from sifive-blocks as well.  As far as I know, there's nothing 
RISC-V-specific about most of these IP blocks.  (As an example, there's 
nothing CPU architecture-specific about a UART.)

I'm fine with putting these bindings under bindings/riscv/, if that's 
where you need them to go.  But I'd like to understand the rationale 
better - could you describe that?

thanks,

- Paul