On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> For the Armada 380 and Armada 385 SoCs, the common bindings for those >> 2 SoCs, was forgotten. This patch add the documentation for the >> marvell,aramda38x property. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> -- >> Hi, >> >> This fix should be merged in 3.16. For 3.15 I am not sure as it is not >> a regression. >> >> Changelog: >> v1->v2 >> >> - Reformulate to make clear that we will need marvell,armada38x _and_ a >> SoC specific string. For consistency I duplicated what we have done in >> armada-370-xp.txt >> >> >> Thanks, >> Gregory >> >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt >> index 11f2330a6554..fa08760046df 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt >> @@ -6,5 +6,18 @@ following property: >> >> Required root node property: >> >> - - compatible: must contain either "marvell,armada380" or >> - "marvell,armada385" depending on the variant of the SoC being used. >> +compatible: must contain "marvell,armada38x" > > I agree with Sergei on this one. We generally avoid wildcards in > compatible strings. Is there a use case where specifying one of the > below wouldn't be sufficient? Isn't this a case of just documenting what is already in use? I agree wildcards alone are not good, but along with a specific compatible is okay. But also there should be some need to have the common property. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
