Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: Add new board description for MicroBlaze V

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/7/23 22:18, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 12:09:58PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 11/6/23 18:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:53:40PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > MicroBlaze V is new AMD/Xilinx soft-core 32bit RISC-V processor IP.
> > > > > It is hardware compatible with classic MicroBlaze processor. Processor can
> > > > > be used with standard AMD/Xilinx IPs including interrupt controller and
> > > > > timer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > >    .../devicetree/bindings/soc/amd/amd.yaml      | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 
> > > > Bindings for SoCs (and by extension boards with them) usually go to in
> > > > $arch/$vendor.yaml not into soc/$vendor/$vendor.yaml. Why is this any
> > > > different?
> > > 
> > > I actually found it based on tracking renesas.yaml which describes one of
> > > risc-v board. No problem to move it under bindings/riscv/
> > 
> > That one is kinda a special case, as it contains arm/arm64/riscv.
> 
> If they are kinda a special case then what are we?
> All AMD/Xilinx platforms(ZynqMP/Versal/Versal NET) can have
> arm/arm64/riscv/microblaze cpus(riscv/microblaze as soft cores) in the same
> board (IIRC I have also seen xtensa soft core on our chips too).

That would be an argument iff you had all of those in a single file, not
when you only have a single compatible for a riscv "soc" in it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature