On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:17:12PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>
> > 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?
No. That only tells you the identity of the device, not the format of
the binding.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
