Hello Rob, Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the delayed response (I've been moving to a new country so didn't have too much time to answer emails). On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:04:25PM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: [snip] >>> >>> If there is no specific driver for <manufacturer>, a generic >>> - driver based on <type> is selected. Possible types are: >>> + driver based on <type> and manufacturer "atmel" is selected. >>> + Possible types are: >> >> This isn't quite right. What the driver does isn't really relevant to >> the binding. >> >> These types with no vendor are used as the compatible string, so we have >> to allow them. But it should be clear that no vendor is deprecated. >> Ironically, it is a lot of Atmel boards that do this. >> >> We should also explicitly list what are valid manufacturers. We also >> have "at" as a vendor prefix which perhaps we should explicitly say is >> deprecated. > > I should perhaps look at the rest of the series before replying.. > > Based on that, the only comment that applies is listing the > manufacturers that are valid. From a DT perspective, I should not have > to know what the OS driver supports. If the device is compatible with > atmel, then that is required. If not, then the specific manufacturer's > compatible alone is enough and the OS has to match to that. > Got it, I'll re-spin the series probably this week adding that information to the DT binding doc. > Rob Best regards, Javier -- 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
