From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ivan.ivanov@linaro.org (Ivan T. Ivanov) Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 17:17:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add msm8916 CoreSight components In-Reply-To: References: <1431012969-16338-1-git-send-email-ivan.ivanov@linaro.org> <1431012969-16338-3-git-send-email-ivan.ivanov@linaro.org> <1431092877.21307.18.camel@linaro.org> Message-ID: <1431094640.21307.23.camel@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 08:13 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On 8 May 2015 at 07:47, Ivan T. Ivanov ivanov at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 07:38 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > On 7 May 2015 at 09:36, Ivan T. Ivanov ivanov at linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Add initial set of CoreSight components found on Qualcomm's 8x16 chipset. > > > > > > > > > > > > +???????replicator at 824000 { > > > > + compatible = "qcom,coresight-replicator", "arm,primecell"; > > > > > > Shouldn't it be "qcom,coresight-replicator1x" ? > > > > > > > > > > > True, I still wonder, why we have to have this compatible string? > > Drivers are probed by amba_id and "arm,primecell", after all. > > > > Drivers have their own compatible strings for historical reasons, > something I've been meaning to fix for a long time now... > Yep, I see that they have been platform drivers in the past, but now they are not, except coresight-replicator driver. IMHO, having additional compatible string could lead just to confusion. Regards, Ivan