On 01.02.2023 18:32, Neil Armstrong wrote: > Hi Heiner, > > On 01/02/2023 18:30, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> During review of a new yaml binding, affecting these dts, it turned out >> that some compatibles aren't ordered as they should be. Order should be >> most specific to least specific. >> >> Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/meson8b.dtsi | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl.dtsi | 4 ++-- >> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/meson8b.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/meson8b.dtsi >> index d5a3fe21e..5979209fe 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/meson8b.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/meson8b.dtsi >> @@ -580,8 +580,8 @@ ðmac { >> }; >> &gpio_intc { >> - compatible = "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc", >> - "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc"; >> + compatible = "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc", >> + "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc"; >> status = "okay"; >> }; >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi >> index 923d2d8bb..12ef6e81c 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi >> @@ -300,8 +300,8 @@ ðmac { >> }; >> &gpio_intc { >> - compatible = "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc", >> - "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc"; >> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc", >> + "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc"; >> status = "okay"; >> }; >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl.dtsi >> index 04e9d0f1b..af912f698 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl.dtsi >> @@ -312,8 +312,8 @@ &clkc_AO { >> }; >> &gpio_intc { >> - compatible = "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc", >> - "amlogic,meson-gxl-gpio-intc"; >> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxl-gpio-intc", >> + "amlogic,meson-gpio-intc"; >> status = "okay"; >> }; >> > > Please send a new clean patchset with the associated bindings changes then this patch, > and split ARM and arm64 in 2 patches. > Shouldn't this patch be first? Else make dtbs_check will complain. > Neil