On Monday 15 March 2021 13:08:16 Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:14:54AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 12 March 2021 16:53:32 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > So theoretically the turris-mox-rwtm driver can be renamed into > > > > something else and we can add a different compatible in order not to > > > > sound so turris-mox specific. > > > > > > That would be a good idea. And if possible, try to push the hardware > > > random number code upstream in the firmware repos, so everybody gets > > > it by default, not just those using your build. Who is responsible for > > > upstream? Marvell? > > > > > > Andrew > > > > Hello Andrew! > > > > I do not think that renaming driver is the best option. For future it > > would complicate backporting patches to stable kernel and also it would > > make usage of 'gitk' harder as this tool cannot automatically track file > > renames. > > Hi Pali > > I'm not suggesting renaming the .c file. > > What would be good is to add additional compatible strings. Add a more > generic compatible. What goes into the .dtsi should use the generic > name. Also, the node names should also be generic, since the node name > is probably not used anywhere, just the compatible string. Keep the > current compatible in the driver, for backwards compatibility with > older DT blobs. Ok! What about compatible string "marvell,armada-3700-rwtm-firmware"? Mailbox layer which is used by this driver has compatible string "marvell,armada-3700-rwtm-mailbox", so name is similar.
