From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:04:22 +0100 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> <20150508180052.GD11680@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20150511110422.GA4595@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:17:12PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > > On May 8, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov 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. > > > > The compatible string tells you both the device _and_ the format of the > > other properties, because it tells you which binding applies. > > > > So the compatible string should be present regardless, as > > "arm,primecell" does not define the majority of the properties you need > > for the replicator node. > > Mmm, only if vendors don?t bother to update version information > fused to revision id registers, which happens. And this could > be workaround by "arm,primecell-periphid?, no? No. That only tells you the identity of the device, not the format of the binding. Thanks, Mark.