On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 05:33:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > 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? Technically, yes. However, there are no products shipping with this SoC yet. So there aren't any _real_ users other than the developers bringing in mainline support. > 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. I'm curious what you would consider to be a sufficient need? This can be easily handled by a match table, but a match table could also be considered rather heavy for this task. I think any implementation-based justification is prone to opening a can of worms. And I'm struggling to see a DT-only justification... thx, Jason. -- 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
