Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2022 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: riscv: Add DT binding documentation for Renesas RZ/Five SoC and SMARC EVK
In-Reply-To: <1aa477b2-1d91-066e-5fcd-849ece62388d@linaro.org>
CC:     geert@linux-m68k.org, biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com,
        prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com,
        prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com, magnus.damm@gmail.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, anup@brainfault.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Message-ID: <mhng-16e843f9-aba2-41fe-9027-8362472fc7d7@palmer-mbp2014>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 23:23:10 PDT (-0700), krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 18:42, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> At the DT validation level, I think the proper solution is to
>> merge Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml and
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/renesas.yaml into a single
>> file under Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/.
>>
>> What do other people think?
>
> I am ok with it.

Seems reasonable to me too, but I pretty much always err on the side of 
keeping SOC stuff split out from the RISC-V stuff.  Just looking at 
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/, it's pretty much all SOC stuff 
-- should we just move everything but cpus.yaml over?