> On May 8, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 07:38 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> On 7 May 2015 at 09:36, Ivan T. Ivanov ivanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Add initial set of CoreSight components found on Qualcomm's 8x16 chipset.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> + replicator@824000 {
>>>> + compatible = "qcom,coresight-replicator", "arm,primecell";
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it be "qcom,coresight-replicator1x" ?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> True, I still wonder, why we have to have this compatible string?
>> Drivers are probed by amba_id and "arm,primecell", after all.
>
> The compatible string tells you both the device _and_ the format of the
> other properties, because it tells you which binding applies.
>
> So the compatible string should be present regardless, as
> "arm,primecell" does not define the majority of the properties you need
> for the replicator node.
Mmm, only if vendors don’t bother to update version information
fused to revision id registers, which happens. And this could
be workaround by "arm,primecell-periphid”, no?
Regards,
Ivan--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
