On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rob > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Add compatible strings for the PCIe IP blocks present on several Tegra >> > chips. The primary objective here is to avoid checkpatch warnings, >> > per: >> > [...] >> > + - "nvidia,tegra132-pcie" (not yet matched in the driver) >> > + - "nvidia,tegra210-pcie" (not yet matched in the driver) >> >> Whether the driver matches or not is irrelevant to the binding and may >> change over time. Does this mean the driver matches on something else >> or Tegra132 is not yet supported in the driver? > > It means that the driver currently matches on one of the first three > strings that don't carry that annotation. > >> If the former, what is important is what are the valid combinations of >> compatible properties and that is not captured here. In other words, >> what is the fallback compatible string for each chip? > > The intention was to try to be helpful: to document that anyone adding a > "nvidia,tegra132-pcie" compatible string would also need to add one of the > other strings as a fallback. Would you like that to be documented in a > different way, or removed? Then you should say something like 'must contain "nvidia,tegra20-pcie" and one of: ...' You can also use nvidia,<chip>-pcie if you want. checkpatch will check for that pattern too. Then your documentation can be something like: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie", "nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, ... We don't enforce that the <chip> part is documented ATM and not likely until we have a schema if ever. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
