Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld

[Michael Walle]

Am 2020-07-28 10:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/kontron,sl28cpld.yaml#
> > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +title: Kontron's sl28cpld board management controller
> > > > >
> > > > > "S128CPLD" ?
> > > >
> > > > still not, its sl28cpld, think of a project/code name, not the product
> > > > appended with CPLD.
> > > >
> > > > > "Board Management Controller (BMC)" ?
> > > >
> > > > sounds like IPMI, which I wanted to avoid.
> > >
> > > Is there a datasheet?
> >
> > No there isn't.
>
> Then what are you working from?

Ok, there is no public datasheet. If that wasn't clear before, I'm 
working
for that company that also implemented that CPLD.

> > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > +  - Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > +  The board management controller may contain different IP blocks
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > +  watchdog, fan monitoring, PWM controller, interrupt controller
> > > > > > and a
> > > > > > +  GPIO controller.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +properties:
> > > > > > +  compatible:
> > > > > > +    const: kontron,sl28cpld-r1
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't usually code revision numbers in compatible strings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any way to pull this from the H/W?
> > > >
> > > > No, unfortunately you can't. And I really want to keep that, in case
> > > > in the future there are some backwards incompatible changes.
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > I know you reviewed this already, but you can give your opinion on
> > > this specifically please?  I know that we have pushed back on this in
> > > the past.
> >
> > Oh, come one. That is an arbitrary string. "sl28cpld-r1" is the first
> > implementation of this. A future "sl28cpld-r2" might look completely
> > different and might not suite the simple MFD at all. "sl28cpld" is
> > a made up name - as "sl28cpld-r1" is, too.
>
> Well that sounds bogus for a start.  I guess that's one of the
> problems with trying to support programmable H/W in S/W.

What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? How
is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by the
vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor
might name it adt7412. We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the
problem here?

-michael