On 29/09/2022 10:29, Neil Armstrong wrote: > Hi, > > On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles >>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both. >> >> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does >> not make sense, please say why. > > We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible > were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both... > > As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and > drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ? ~7 years ago here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160624220748.GB11719@dtor-ws/ you proposed to add something entirely different than we have here now and than we talk about. In that thread you correctly wrote: "My point of view is that the devicetree describes the hardware and need to have SoC specific compatible string since it describes the actual silicon, and drivers must make sure to handle all the SoC or family variants using the compatible string and the match data." but implemented it entirely different. Maybe you refer to different mail thread, I don't know, but that one is indeed wrong. The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not. How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then document proper compatibles. Best regards, Krzysztof
