Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:50 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Either we leave it as is - which follows my interpretation of what the DT > > spec says - or we (and the DT maitainers) agree that it shouldn't be > > there (because this dtb won't run on any random qcom,sc7180 anyways) at > > all. > > I'm curious what part of the DT spec says that we should have the SoC > in there? I know I've always done it, but it's always just been > following the examples of what was done before. When talking about the > root node, I see this in the `devicetree-specification-v0.4-rc1` spec: > > --- > > Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is > compatible. This property can be used by operating systems in > selecting platform specific code. The recommended form of the property > value is: "manufacturer,model" > > For example: > compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds" > > --- > > That doesn't say anything about putting the SoC there. > > > I would also note that I'd be at least moderately inclined to land > things as-is and deal with this in a follow-up patch, though I'm happy > to spin if that's what people agree upon too. This is not a new > problem and so it doesn't seem like it makes sense to glom dealing > with it into this patch series... I noticed that you applied the first 4 patches in the series (thanks!) but not this one. Are we waiting to get agreement on this before landing? As per above, I think it'd be OK to land as-is and then I'm happy to do a follow-up patch to clean this up since this isn't a new issue. Having this patch outstanding makes it a little confusing with the other cleanup patches that I'm posting... ;-) Thanks! -Doug
