On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Matthew McClintock <mmcclint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:05:04PM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote: >>> Update the compatible string to add new device tree binding >>> >>> CC: linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <mmcclint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/qcom-wdt.txt | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/qcom-wdt.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/qcom-wdt.txt >>> index 60bb2f98..45b37cf 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/qcom-wdt.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/qcom-wdt.txt >>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Required properties : >>> >>> "qcom,kpss-timer" >>> "qcom,scss-timer" >>> + "qcom,kpss-standalone" >> >> What SoC(s) is this in. Use SoC specific compatible strings please. > > So ipq4019 wins the race because we are the first to try to enable watchdog for this block? Yep, that's how it is supposed to work. Newer chips claim compatibility with older ones. > qcom,kpss-ipq4019 ? Yes, but generally <vendor>,<soc>-<block> is preferred order. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
