> Am 04.10.2023 um 13:03 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:50:16 +0200
> "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>>> Am 04.10.2023 um 08:53 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> Drop omap36xx compatible as done in other omap3630 devices.
>>> This has apparently fallen through the lattice.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi
>>> index b6b27e93857f..3661340009e7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi
>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
>>>
>>> / {
>>> model = "OMAP3 GTA04";
>>> - compatible = "goldelico,gta04", "ti,omap3630", "ti,omap36xx", "ti,omap3";
>>
>> there seem to be some more references to ti,omap36xx:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-lilly-a83x.dtsi: compatible = "incostartec,omap3-lilly-a83x", "ti,omap3630", "ti,omap36xx", "ti,omap3";
>
> apperently all the dtsi are fallen through the lattice when handling the dts.
>
>
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx",
>> drivers/clk/ti/dpll.c: of_machine_is_compatible("ti,omap36xx")) &&
>> drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c: { .compatible = "ti,omap36xx", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, },
>>
>> So are you sure that we can remove it without replacement or code fixes in dpll and cpufreq (board-generic is probably no issue)?
>>
> see discussion of:
>
> commit e341f338180c84cd98af3016cf5bcfde45a041fb
> Author: Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Feb 16 09:33:38 2023 -0600
>
> ARM: dts: omap: Drop ti,omap36xx compatible
Ah, I wasn't aware of this.
>
> all the places also basically check for omap36xx || omap3630.
Yes, I have checked but drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c seems to be an
exception (unless I am missing some other patch).
Generally it could be good to remove the double checks
for omap36xx || omap3630 in code? Is this planned as well?
BR,
Nikolaus
