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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220815111708.22302-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20220816174150.GA2428940-robh@kernel.org> <CA+V-a8vayVoHONavLMTdfQkYsT_+7NLXid3V58FU+ABzB9kgBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+V-a8vayVoHONavLMTdfQkYsT_+7NLXid3V58FU+ABzB9kgBg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 14:43:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKs2Vtd2RevajLyEaBHjwoHozpw8763-v6jbG9t9mk4Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: renesas: Move renesas.yaml from arm to soc
To:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:40 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:41 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:17:08PM +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> > > renesas.yaml lists out all the Renesas SoC's and the platforms/EVK's which
> > > is either ARM32/ARM64. It would rather make sense if we move renesas.yaml
> > > to the soc/renesas folder instead. This is in preparation for adding a new
> > > SoC (RZ/Five) from Renesas which is based on RISC-V.
> >
> > Please post this as part of the above.
> >
> Sure, I just wanted to get some feedback on this so had it posted separately.
>
> > bindings/soc/ is just a dumping ground for stuff that doesn't fit
> > anywhere. We've mostly cleaned bindings/arm/ of that, so I don't really
> > want to start that again. I would propose bindings/board/ instead if we
> > move in this direction.
> >
> OK. So to clarify, how do we separate it further bindings/board/<based
> on SoC vendor> or bindings/board/<board manufacturer>?

The latter doesn't work with how the schemas are structured.

Rob