> -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Herring [mailto:robh@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:34 PM > To: A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> [...] > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 07:24:40AM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote: > > As the power domain API might change in the future for new SoCs, > > although in a very low possibility, it's still better to make the > > compatible string more SoC specific to avoid the possible version change for > new SoCs. > > > > Due to there're still no users in kernel, it's safe to update it > > without breaking anything. > > > > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Sascha Hauer <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Suggested-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> > > checkpatch says: > > WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author 'A.s. Dong > <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>' > Do you think if we can ignore this warning? It seems checkpatch checks the email sender name as nominal patch author which is abbreviated as 'A.S. Dong'. But I always use the full name in upstreaming patches. > > --- > > ChangeLog: > > v5->v6: > > * new patch > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,scu.txt | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,scu.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,scu.txt > > index 46d0af1..87fc4b4 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,scu.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/freescale/fsl,scu.txt > > @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ This binding for the SCU power domain providers uses > > the generic power domain binding[2]. > > > > Required properties: > > -- compatible: Should be "fsl,scu-pd". > > +- compatible: Should be "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd". > > You can keep both if you think future SoCs will be compatible. > They're likely to be compatible AFAIK. Just to be clear, you mean keep both of them? e.g. compatible: Should be "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd" or "fsl,scu-pd" Can you please help clarify a bit more on why it's better to do that as I'm not quite Understand? And for later when mx8qm is supported, should we add it again as follows? compatible: Should be "fsl,imx8qm-scu-pd", "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd" or "fsl,scu-pd" Regards Dong Aisheng > > - #address-cells: Should be 1. > > - #size-cells: Should be 0. > > > > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ firmware { > > }; > > > > imx8qx-pm { > > - compatible = "fsl,scu-pd"; > > + compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <0>; > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > >
