On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:08 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----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? Probably, but better if you can fix it. > 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. The patch contents should start with a 'From:' line if your sending email doesn't match the patch author (such as when you sent another author's patch). Maybe it did match and your email server is overwriting it. I would imagine that can be fixed. > > > --- > > > 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? Yes, but... > e.g. > compatible: Should be "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd" or "fsl,scu-pd" Not exactly, "fsl,scu-pd" should be a fallback and the driver can match on that (until you need to distinguish). So like this: Should be one of: "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd" followed by "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" If formatted as above, then it is a one line change to add: Should be one of: "fsl,imx8qm-scu-pd" "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd" followed by "fsl,scu-pd" Rob
