On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:09:54PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:50 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not sure it's a particular concern, especially since you'll be > > sending this stuff in the same series as a bindings update and an extra > > patch in a series makes very little difference. > Until the DT bindings are split off into their own project... > Listing unneeded compatible values in drivers also increases binary size. > For RSPI and MSIOF that would be +2.5 KiB each. Times tens of drivers. > Considering the RSPI driver itself is only 9 KiB, and some RZ/A1 systems > are really memory-constrained, I think it's better to avoid that. That is an issue, though I can't help wondering if space constrained systems could use some sort of automatic compaction of the ID tables during install. We're also bloating their DTs by adding fallbacks of course! > > > Nowadays we have "make dtbs_check", so if a DTS doesn't conform to the > > > binding, it will be flagged. > > For things that are upstream. > The DT bindings apply to out-of-tree DTS files, too ;-) > If they're not compliant, all odds are off. The point here is to improve robustness and make the interface less fragile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
