Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:01 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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... ;-) I didn't hear anything and I was sending a new version of the cleanup patch series, so I: * Added this last patch to the end of the cleanup series. * Addressed the "-regulator" suffix issue that Stephen pointed out. * Didn't remove the SoC compatible from the top-level node in this patch, but added follow-on patches in the series that do it. Hopefully that looks good to everyone. I removed both of Stephen's and Matthias's review tags from the v3 version. https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220202132301.v3.12.I5604b7af908e8bbe709ac037a6a8a6ba8a2bfa94@changeid -Doug
