On 11/11/2022 04:23, Aakarsh Jain wrote:
> commit "752d3a23d1f68de87e3c" which adds MFC codec device node
> for exynos3250 SoC. Since exynos3250.dtsi and exynos5420.dtsi are
> using same compatible string as "samsung,mfc-v7" but their
> node properties are different.As both SoCs have MFC v7 hardware
> module but with different clock hierarchy and complexity.
> So renaming compatible string from version specific to SoC based.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Aakarsh Jain <aakarsh.jain@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> index 326b9e0ed8d3..98105c64f7d9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@
> };
>
> mfc: codec@13400000 {
> - compatible = "samsung,mfc-v7";
> + compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-mfc";
No improvements. Changeset is non-bisectable. I said it in v1, then in
v2. So now third time... Don't send a new version if you are not going
to fix it or resolve discussion.
In cover letter you said "Addressed review comments from Krzysztof
Kozlowski", so please explain me, how did you resolve my comments about
fallback for this patch and for bindings patch?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
