From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sai Prakash Ranjan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] drivers: edac: Add EDAC driver support for QCOM SoCs Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:11:30 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1536103345-1919-1-git-send-email-vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> <1536103345-1919-4-git-send-email-vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> <105f8339-61bc-072e-0498-ed44470a5fb8@codeaurora.org> <5d8f92b480e1b53e7e04da965d44f7ea@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: vnkgutta@codeaurora.org Cc: Borislav Petkov , evgreen@chromium.org, robh@kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross , David Brown , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, tsoni@codeaurora.org, ckadabi@codeaurora.org, rishabhb@codeaurora.org, swboyd@chromium.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 9/11/2018 4:15 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-09-06 22:02, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >> On 9/7/2018 4:01 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: >>> On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >>>> On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { >>>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, >>>>> +    { }, >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> >>>> Hi Venkata, >>>> >>>> Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible? >>> >>> Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add >>> documentation for this or not! >>> >> >> It does not require a separate binding, what I meant was to add this >> compatible in the llcc binding itself, maybe as a subnode if it is >> correct. > > Hi, > > We aren't really using this of_device_id structure, as this driver is > being registered from LLCC through > platform_register_device_data(...). This structure initialization is > just dead code as this driver won't be probed based on the DT entries. > > Hence removing this compatible property and the corresponding struct in > the next patchset. > > So, this doesn't need an extra binding/documentation. Ok. Now that you have removed the compatible, it should be fine. Thanks