Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210120132717.395873-1-mohamed.mediouni@caramail.com>
 <20210120132717.395873-5-mohamed.mediouni@caramail.com> <CACRpkdZTjUnqOMmc4y5RdxLC+joumPHNpmAr_LKJDO1h+44ouQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZTjUnqOMmc4y5RdxLC+joumPHNpmAr_LKJDO1h+44ouQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:44:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+znLsyQOw59xqYgoYo9eJrn1R1Tj--aRvPHOD_jv0fxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] irqchip/apple-aic: Add support for Apple AIC
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Mohamed Mediouni <mohamed.mediouni@caramail.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Stan Skowronek <stan@corellium.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:49 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mohamed,
>
> thanks for your patch!
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:31 PM Mohamed Mediouni
> <mohamed.mediouni@caramail.com> wrote:
>
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    items:
> > +      - const: apple,aic

As mentioned in patch 7, this needs to be SoC specific.

Also, bindings should be separate patch. checkpatch.pl will tell you this.

> However weird it may seem, Apple is not in the file
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
>
> (I think it's weird because I remember clearly that they have been
> using device tree for PPC since ages.)

That's because the vendor prefix is 'AAPL' which is the stock ticker
and it predates documenting anything.

> Could you add this 2-liner to that file and send it directly to
> DT binding maintainers as a single patch as a preparation?

So this is still needed. Happy to take that given already in use.

Rob