On 13.09.2022 12:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/09/2022 11:19, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> Let me rephrase it: >>> >>> What your commit is doing is requiring additional fallback compatibles. >>> Therefore the commit msg should answer - why do you require additional >>> fallback compatibles? >>> >> >> >> The additional fallback compatibles are required because the driver in >> question only knows about the atmel,at91sam9260-usart compatible. >> Furthermore, it is also a better representation of the fact that the >> serial IP of 9x60 is an improvement over the serial IP of 9260 (it >> contains more hardware features not yet implemented in the driver). >> >> >>> Incremental characteristics sound to me optional. I can increment >>> sam9x60 with something or I can skip it. But you are not doing it... >>> sam9x60 was already there and now you require a fallback. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >> >> So, what is your opinion on the following commit message: >> >> "Fix sam9x60 compatible list by adding the sam9260 compatibles as >> fallback, since the atmel_serial driver only knows of the latter's >> compatible. The atmel_serial driver only has knowledge of the sam9260 >> compatible because it does not have the sam9x60's serial IP specific >> features implemented yet and adding an empty compatible without adding >> support specific to that compatible would be misleading. Thus prefer the >> fallback mechanism in the detriment of adding an empty compatible in the >> driver." > > It's fine. Also could work: > > "Require sam9260 fallback compatible for sam9x60, because sam9x60 is > fully compatible with sam9260 and Linux driver requires the latter." > This version looks better indeed. Sums it all up and is only 2 lines :). Thank you very much for the suggestion it is greatly appeciated. > If it fixes any observable issue like lack of driver binding to DTS, you > can also mention that. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Thanks, Sergiu
