On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 12:36, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 06:56:35PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > The idea impressed in the commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings:
> > Document qcom board compatible format") never got actually adopted. As
> > can be seen from the existing board DT files, no device actually used
> > the PMIC / foundry / version parts of the compatible string. Drop this
> > compatibility string description to avoid possible confusion and keep
> > just the generic terms and the SoC list.
> >
> > Fixes: b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board compatible format")
>
> FWIW: It's not correct that no device uses the version parts of the
> compatible string. There are actually two boards documented in qcom.yaml
> that follow this scheme:
>
> compatible = "qcom,msm8916-mtp", "qcom,msm8916-mtp/1", "qcom,msm8916";
> compatible = "longcheer,l8150", "qcom,msm8916-v1-qrd/9-v1", "qcom,msm8916";
>
> I don't think anyone is actively relying on those, though. I guess we
> can just ignore them or even remove them.
Excuse me for the long delay. As it was you who added the
longcheer-l8150 support, does it require any of the msm-id options or
dtbTool (original or modified) processing?
If it can work with no additional tags, we can drop these compatibility strings.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
