On Sun 03 Nov 22:17 PST 2019, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > On 10/31/2019 1:20 AM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:50:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2019-10-23 02:02:19) > > > > From: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Add pdc interrupt controller for sc7180 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v3: > > > > Used the qcom,sdm845-pdc compatible for pdc node > > > > > > Everything else isn't doing the weird old compatible thing. Why not just > > > add the new compatible and update the driver? I guess I'll have to go > > > read the history. > > > > Marc Zyngier complained on v2 about the churn from adding compatible > > strings for identical components, and I kinda see his point. > > > > I agree that using the 'sdm845' compatible string for sc7180 is odd too. > > Maybe we should introduce SoC independent compatible strings for IP blocks > > that are shared across multiple SoCs? If differentiation is needed SoC > > specific strings can be added. > > Sure, I will perhaps add a qcom,pdc SoC independent compatible to avoid > confusion. > I agree, compatible = "qcom,sc7180-pdc", "qcom,pdc"; is the way to go. Reusing qcom,sdm845-pdc would prevent us from tackling any unforeseen issues/variations/erratas with one or the other platform in the future. Regards, Bjorn > > -- > QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member > of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
