Re: [PATCH 2/8] dt-bindings: arm: atmel: add new sam9x60 reset controller binding

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:00 AM <Nicolas.Ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 22/01/2019 at 02:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:57:38AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> >> Update the Reset Controller's binding to add new SoC compatibility string.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
> >> index 36952cc39993..badce6ef3ab3 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ Its subnodes can be:
> >>   RSTC Reset Controller required properties:
> >>   - compatible: Should be "atmel,<chip>-rstc".
> >>     <chip> can be "at91sam9260", "at91sam9g45", "sama5d3" or "samx7"
> >> +  it also can be "microchip,sam9x60-rstc"
> >
> > How is this related to at91sam9260-rstc?
>
> at91sam9260 and sam9x60 are completely different products (they share
> the same core though...). I know the naming could be misleading but it
> is like it is...
>
> > The 'x' is a wildcard? We generally avoid wildcards.
>
> Here, the 'x' is definitively not a wildcard nor a kind of "family"
> name, it's included in the (upcoming) single product's name.
>
> I hope it clarifies.

Yes, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>