> On 17/10/2022 17:23, Richard Acayan wrote:
>>> Devices with ee offset of 0x10000 should rather bind with SM6350
>>> compatible, so the list will not unnecessarily grow for compatible
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c | 7 ++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>> index f8e19e6e6117..061add832295 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>>> @@ -2286,13 +2286,14 @@ static int gpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> }
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id gpi_of_match[] = {
>>> - { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x0 },
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>>> /*
>>> - * Deprecated, devices with ee_offset = 0 should use sdm845-gpi-dma as
>>> - * fallback and not need their own entries here.
>>
>> This comment is from the dependency series [1]. Why would we need to add it just
>> to remove it here? I was not notified that the dependency was applied anywhere
>> (except as a base for other series) so it's not set in stone. Let's just drop
>> the original patch that this comment originates from to prevent needlessly
>> adding and removing the same lines at once.
>
> I don't remove the comment, I re-phrase it to be better suited for final
> code.
Yes, I didn't word that exactly right. I still think the patch that adds this is
now useless if it's just going to be replaced. Do you think I should keep the
patch that this comment originates from, even though we already know exactly how
its substantial contents will be replaced?
We can't modify history and drop commits on kernel trees, but I can still send
a v6 series that drops the original comment.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
