On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:50 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a bit late to the party, sorry for that. > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:56:11AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:30 AM Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > A64 IR is compatible with A13, so add A64 compatible with A13 as a > > > > fallback. > > > > > > We ask people to add the SoC-specific compatible as a contigency, > > > in case things turn out to be not so "compatible". > > > > > > To be consistent with all the other SoCs and other peripherals, > > > unless you already spotted a "compatible" difference in the > > > hardware, i.e. the hardware isn't completely the same, this > > > patch isn't needed. On the other hand, if you did, please mention > > > the differences in the commit log. > > > > Even if we don't spot things, since we have the stable DT now, if we > > ever had that compatible in the DT from day 1, it's much easier to > > deal with. > > > > I'd really like to have that pattern for all the IPs even if we didn't > > spot any issue, since we can't really say that the datasheet are > > complete, and one can always make a mistake and overlook something. > > > > I'm fine with this version, and can apply it as is if we all agree. > > I'm OK with having the fallback compatible. I'm just pointing out > that there are and will be a whole bunch of them, and we don't need > to document all of them unless we are actually doing something to > support them. Yes, you do. Otherwise, how will we validate what is and isn't a valid set of compatible strings? It's not required yet, but bindings are moving to json-schema. Rob
