Hello Andrew, On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:10:09AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Try to see it from my perspective: I see that some vf610 device I don't > > have (found via `git grep marvell,mv88e6` or so) uses > > "marvell,mv88e6085". I then assume it has that device on board. How > > would I know it doesn't? Same for the other boards you mention. > > > > Unfortunately some of your replies are slightly cryptic. Had you simply > > replied 'please just use "marvell,mv88e6085" instead', it would've been > > much more clear what you want. (Same for extending the subject instead > > of just pointing to some FAQ.) > > By reading the FAQ you have learnt more than me saying put the correct > tree in the subject line. By asking you to explain why you need a > compatible string, i'm trying to make you think, look at the code and > understand it. In the future, you might think and understand the code > before posting a patch, and then we all save time. I agree to Andreas though, that it makes an school teacher impression. Something like: Please fix the subject. Check the FAQ for the details, which btw is worth a read completely. is IMHO better in this regard and once you found the problem there you don't need to ask back if it's that what was meant. > > So are you okay with patch 1/2 documenting the compatible? Then we could > > drop 2/2 and use "marvell,mv88e6176", "marvell,mv88e6085" instead of > > just the latter. Or would you rather drop both and keep the actual chip > > a comment? > > A comment only please. I still wonder (and didn't get an answer back when I asked about this) why a comment is preferred here. For other devices I know it's usual and requested by the maintainers to use: compatible = "exact name", "earlyer device to match driver"; . This is more robust, documents the situation more formally and makes it better greppable. The price to pay is only a few bytes in the dtb which IMO is ok. Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
