From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] firmware: meson-sm: use generic compatible In-Reply-To: <20171017204959.kfbhn2yxhv2sb5qg@rob-hp-laptop> (Rob Herring's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0500") References: <20171012134743.10625-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <20171017204959.kfbhn2yxhv2sb5qg@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <7h8tg7zb6t.fsf@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Rob Herring writes: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: >> The meson secure monitor seems to be compatible with more SoCs than >> initially thought. Let's use the most generic compatible he have in >> DT instead of the gxbb specific one >> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/meson/meson_sm.txt | 4 ++-- >> drivers/firmware/meson/meson_sm.c | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Seems like a pointless, not backwards compatible change to me. I've verified that it's backwards compatible with existing upstream DTs. > end, it's just a string to match on. Who cares what the string is. As platform maintiner, I very much care what the strings are and I want it to be coherent with the platform generic names, and I want the SoC-specific strings to correspond to the actual SoC names. Kevin