Hi,
Am 18.05.20 um 10:29 schrieb André Przywara:
On 18/05/2020 07:17, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
I don't know if the DT fallback is discouraged or not.
I don't know if there is an "official" statement on this, but last thing
I heard, adding SoC specific compatibles to generic fallback strings was
encouraged. Hence my proposal, to add one.
I believe the official guidance would be to never be too generic in the
first place. I.e., prefer s500 (oldest model tested) over generic owl.
But now that we have it, prepending a more specific one (rather than
replacing it) is the only way to go. In that case the binding needs to
be changed to allow both the old and the recommended new variant, as
André points out. Please add a comment to help bindings readers choose
which of the two to adopt then.
Amit, next time please quote errors you see right away, that could've
spared a handful of messages discussing about the driver when it was in
fact just a bindings issue (which you had been asked to fix by André).
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
_______________________________________________
linux-actions mailing list
linux-actions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-actions
