On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 00:06, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:16 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:31:43PM -0700, Joseph Kogut wrote: > > > Document vendor specific compatible string for Mali gpus on Exynos SoCs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joseph Kogut <joseph.kogut@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt > > > index 1b1a74129141..a9704c736d07 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt > > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ Required properties: > > > + "amlogic,meson-gxm-mali" > > > + "rockchip,rk3288-mali" > > > + "rockchip,rk3399-mali" > > > + + "samsung,exynos-mali" > > > > Are there any driver differences for Exynos? If not then why adding > > another compatible? > > Wrong question. Are there any hardware differences? (Trick question > because difference compared to what?) > > Really, this shouldn't be 'exynos', but per SoC. But I'll leave it to > the Samsung folks to decide how specific it should be. If vendor compatible is expected, then let's go with per-soc (Exynos5420) because other SoCs use different Midgard chipsets so they might come with own differences. Best regards, Krzysztof
