On 14.07.20 21:29, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:54:15AM +0200, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
It would still be quite nice to benefit from the flexibility of DT overlays
not only for the SPI use case. But before I come up with any custom
solution, for now I will rather have the device in the DT statically.
I just wonder if I need to keep the DT node for the device in a separate
patch in our own tree, or if a node with a custom compatible string like for
example "kontron,user-spi" would be accepted upstream, without a matching
driver?
I'm having a hard time getting enthusiastic about it TBH - can you not
just use spidev and live with the warning?
Ok, I can do that, but when I resend my patches and add "compatible =
'spidev'" to my DT I expect someone to complain again as my DT does not
describe the hardware.
Seeing that there are quite a few DTs that still do it like this, I
probably will try it still and also keep a patch in our tree to remove
the warning so customers won't be getting worried.
But for obvious reasons this can't be considered a good solution and it
seems somewhat disturbing that the maintainer needs to propose it
because of lack of proper solutions ;)
