On 2016/10/24 21:39, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:23:10PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> On 2016/10/24 21:16, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:40:01PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> On 2016/10/24 19:16, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>>> Is "161x01" the *exact* erratum number, or is the 'x' a wildcard? >>>> >>>> The 'x' is a wildcard, it will cover 161001 to 161601 several numbers, >>> >>> Given you're using a wildcard, I take it that this is a *part* number? >> >> Yes, I was doubt how to fix this, should I choose a better erratum number? > > Typically, we expect that each vendor has some central database of their > errata, with each having a unique ID. > > If Huawei do not have such a database, I do not think that we should > invent an erratum number here. > Hi Marko< After discussion with our chip developer, we decide the 161601 as the *exact* erratum number for this chip to cover all the problem and register this in our company's database, thanks. Ding > Thanks, > Mark. > > . > -- 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
