On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025, Artur Weber wrote:
>
> > On 13.03.2025 14:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 01:20:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 04 Mar 2025, Artur Weber wrote:
> > >
> > > > > + if (id != bcm590xx->pmu_id) {
> > > > > + dev_err(bcm590xx->dev,
> > > > > + "Incorrect ID for %s: expected %x, got %x. Check your DT compatible.\n",
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it more likely that the H/W this is being executed on is
> > > > unsupported? If so, say that instead.
> > >
> > > Given that the compatibles are device specific the driver shouldn't be
> > > binding if the device is unsupported.
> >
> > Yes, the intention here is just to make sure that the DT compatible and
> > hardware ID match. Unsupported hardware would not have a DT compatible.
>
> Right, so the user is utilising the correct compatible on the incorrect
> (most likely unsupported) platform. When using a supported DTB on
> unknown hardware, the driver will bind but fail here.
If you simply drop the unnecessary "Check your DT compatible." part, not
only does it tidy up the print / line, it also covers more bases.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
