On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 1:30 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 08:56:00AM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > > Sort OF table alphabetically by compatibles. > > > > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Wrong, I haven't suggested that. See comment to the previous patch. > > > > And this is definitely wrong as Geert explained already why. > > You need to fix the code that handles the ID table first. > > I retracted my own comment: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAMuHMdUVCS_D0SBtDBrLQbAkdt0ZUbMOca+ukdwUtnGqzUr+cA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Upon a second read, I agree my reply > > Seems like it is, cfr. the scoring system in drivers/of/base.c > > was confusing, as it was not super clear if it was a response to the > first or the second line of your comment: > > You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice > minefield! > This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely. > > Conclusion: there is no issue, the scoring system handles primary > vs. fallback compatible values, irrespective of ordering. Now I'm totally confused. Previously you mentioned a couple of different APIs — one in OF, one in SoC. AFAIU the second one still needs to be fixed to follow the logic that OF does. My previous understanding was that OF code — no issue SoC code — the ordering is required to be correct Can you confirm that there is no issue in that second case? And if there is none, why did you mention it? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
