On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:15:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > My rebuttal is threefold: > 1. Listing the fallback property is mandatory for new SoCs. We only keep > the per-SoC compatible values in the driver for older SoCs that predate > the introduction of fallback properties. So good practice is always good practice, but I'd argue that it's not bad practice to also explicitly enumerate all the documented compatibles in the driver. Being liberal in what you accept and all that. > 2. Some harm is involved, in the form of increased kernel image size. Is this really a meaningful impact? > 3. When updating DT bindings for new SoCs, we usually add "No driver > update is needed" to the patch description to clarify. Unfortunately > that was missed here. That's basically the same good practice thing, it's just documenting what you're trying to do here with not putting things in code but writing things in changelogs doesn't make them so!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
