From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: dt: bindings: sunxi-ir: Add A64 compatible Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:19:17 -0600 Message-ID: <20190122001917.GA31407@bogus> References: <20190111173015.12119-1-jernej.skrabec@siol.net> <20190111173015.12119-2-jernej.skrabec@siol.net> <20190121095014.b6iq5dubfi7x2pi4@flea> Reply-To: robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Chen-Yu Tsai Cc: Maxime Ripard , Jernej Skrabec , Mark Rutland , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Media Mailing List , devicetree , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , linux-sunxi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:50 PM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a bit late to the party, sorry for that. > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:56:11AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:30 AM Jernej Skrabec wrote: > > > > > > > > A64 IR is compatible with A13, so add A64 compatible with A13 as a > > > > fallback. > > > > > > We ask people to add the SoC-specific compatible as a contigency, > > > in case things turn out to be not so "compatible". > > > > > > To be consistent with all the other SoCs and other peripherals, > > > unless you already spotted a "compatible" difference in the > > > hardware, i.e. the hardware isn't completely the same, this > > > patch isn't needed. On the other hand, if you did, please mention > > > the differences in the commit log. > > > > Even if we don't spot things, since we have the stable DT now, if we > > ever had that compatible in the DT from day 1, it's much easier to > > deal with. > > > > I'd really like to have that pattern for all the IPs even if we didn't > > spot any issue, since we can't really say that the datasheet are > > complete, and one can always make a mistake and overlook something. > > > > I'm fine with this version, and can apply it as is if we all agree. > > I'm OK with having the fallback compatible. I'm just pointing out > that there are and will be a whole bunch of them, and we don't need > to document all of them unless we are actually doing something to > support them. Yes, you do. Otherwise, how will we validate what is and isn't a valid set of compatible strings? It's not required yet, but bindings are moving to json-schema. Rob