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.
Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus.
So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually
arbitrary. That's a good start.
We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here?
Do you though? So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device? The name
that is quoted from the (private) datasheet? Because looking at the
implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though
you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for
revision identification. Which if true, is not usually allowed and
warrants intervention by Rob.