On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:18:19PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:49 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm much more comfortable explicitly listing the new compatible so that > > even if someone makes a DT that doesn't bother listing the fallbacks > > things will work. > Adding all of them would cause even more churn when adding support for > a new SoC... There are already more than 700 "renesas," compatible > values documented that are not directly matched by drivers. 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. > 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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
