On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: >> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: >> >> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > >> >> > Additionally, should >> >> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files >> >> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there >> >> > is for the t1023-sfp. >> >> >> >> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0. >> > >> > Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require >> > updating the various dts files. >> >> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable, >> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I >> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for >> compatibility purposes. > > Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right > though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you > want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works > with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the > rationale in the commit message. It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports existing device trees. --Sean
