On 15/10/2026 17:31, Shah, Tanmay wrote: > We use 'amd' vendor prefix for all new drivers & bindings. Also, there > is dedicated IPI hardware which can be used as mailbox too, and we > should distinguish it with this PL mailbox. So I that is included in the > compatible string. (pl-mbox). > > If we are also to include SOC name as well (per compatible property > guideline), then we should include one of the SOC name as well: > > So, I think 'amd,zynqmp-pl-mbox-2.1' is good. > > Krzysztof, are you okay with above name? The 2.1 is FPGA IP design > version number and not the SOC version number. So in future let's say > that FPGA IP design is improved then the name (pl-mbox) will remain > same, but only version number will be updated i.e. (from 2.1 to 3.0). Is > it okay if we explicitly mention this in the binding description?
So you will release the same SoC with different versions of the block? Best regards, Krzysztof
