From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Armstrong Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Add basic support for Amlogic S905X Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:36:01 +0200 Message-ID: <7755ed8c-6083-4e2a-620c-85f55ca1d16e@baylibre.com> References: <20160903082227.30559-1-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <20160903082227.30559-3-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <7e27e8c0-bb18-40d8-10d6-3928e66815c7@suse.de> <7ha8fcq26c.fsf@baylibre.com> <28d9160a-ce40-cbbb-b4e9-3ec34be52368@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carlo Caione , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= Cc: Kevin Hilman , devicetree , LKML , linux-amlogic , linux-arm-kernel List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/13/2016 08:14 AM, Carlo Caione wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > > [cut] >> I'm not arguing over the file name, where it perfectly makes sense to >> have a meson-gxl- prefix (already discussed), just about the compatible >> string where we don't have "amlogic,meson-gxl-s905x-p231" either because >> it is completely unnecessary and does _not_ add any value. >> >> Not that we're checking this string anywhere anyway... If you want to >> check for the GXL family you have to use "amlogic,meson-gxl"; if you >> want to check for the specific SoC you use "amlogic,s905x". Simple. We >> never match partial strings, so there is no sense in a hardcoded prefix >> that is duplicating information already available. > > Ok, then. Fine with me. > > Neil, do you want to resend my patch or you can take care of the fixes > for the whole patchset? > > Thanks, > Ok, I still need to synchronize with kevin for when and where to rebase from. Neil