On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:33 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2023 13:44, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> index 422d00cd4c74..5e66363d4ab5 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/intel/socfpga/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
> >>> @@ -10,6 +10,60 @@ / {
> >>> compatible = "google,chameleon-v3", "enclustra,mercury-aa1",
> >>> "altr,socfpga-arria10", "altr,socfpga";
> >>>
> >>> + soc {
> >>> + video@c0060500 {
> >>> + compatible = "google,chv3-video";
> >>
> >> This compatible does not seem to be documented & I did not see a comment
> >> about the lack of a binding in the cover letter. What am I missing?
> >
> > Yes, the compatible is not documented for now (I'll do that in a later
> > patchset), sorry for not mentioning that in the cover letter.
>
> You cannot add undocumented compatible. This cannot be fixed in "a later
> patchset".
I meant later revision, I'm certainly not expecting this one to land
(I sent is as an RFC). Is it really necessary to document the
compatible to get any form of feedback on the overall structure of the
driver?
