Hi Andre, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:31 PM Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The arm,gic-400 compatible is probably the best matching string for the > GIC in most modern SoCs, but was only introduced later into the kernel. > For historic reasons and to keep compatibility, some SoC DTs were thus > using a combination of this name and one of the older strings, which > currently the binding denies. > > Add a stanza to the DT binding to allow "arm,gic-400", followed by > either "arm,cortex-a15-gic" or "arm,cortex-a7-gic". This fixes binding > compliance for quite some SoC .dtsi files in the kernel tree. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> Thanks for your patch, I was just looking into this issue ;-) > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.yaml > @@ -39,6 +39,12 @@ properties: > - qcom,msm-8660-qgic > - qcom,msm-qgic2 > > + - items: > + - const: arm,gic-400 > + - enum: > + - arm,cortex-a15-gic > + - arm,cortex-a7-gic > + > - items: > - const: arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic > - const: arm,arm11mp-gic https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/r9a06g032.dtsi#n177 has them in the other order. What do you think is the preferred solution: reverting the order, or dropping one or the other? Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
