On 13/12/2023 20:49, Ninad Palsule wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 12/13/23 13:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/12/2023 20:02, Ninad Palsule wrote: >>> Hello Krzysztof, >>> >>> On 12/12/23 14:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12/12/2023 17:40, Ninad Palsule wrote: >>>>> This drop adds following devices in the device tree. >>>>> - EEPROM/VPD >>>>> - Power supplies >>>>> - Humidity, pressure and temperature sensors. >>>>> - Trusted platform module(TPM) chip >>>>> >>>>> Tested: >>>>> This board is tested using the simics simulator. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ninad Palsule <ninad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> Don't mix DTS with drivers. DTS and drivers go via different subsystems >>>> and cannot have dependencies, so why DTS is patch #6, then driver #7 and >>>> now again DTS #7? >>> There is a dependency on driver code as patch #8 uses the compatibility >>> string added in driver patch #7. I have now moved driver patch at the >>> start. Is that ok? OR you are suggesting something else? >> First, there is no dependency. Second, except confusing order anyway DTS >> will go via separate trees. Third, again, there is no dependency. If >> there is, your patchset is broken and this needs to be fixed. Although I >> don't understand how new hardware can depend on driver... it's really odd. > > Thanks for the quick response. > > This board uses the nuvoton TPM device. The tpm devices uses > "nuvoton,npct75x" driver hence we added it in the device tree. If the > driver doesn't have this compatibility string then it won't load. So if > someone tries to use this board then tpm won't work unless the ... and if there is no board it also fails to load. > compatibility string is added in the driver. That is the dependency I am > talking about. This is not a dependency! It's unrelated. Best regards, Krzysztof
