From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762404AbdJRHbM (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 03:31:12 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:48735 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755632AbdJRHbK (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 03:31:10 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+S8N1o5KKO04mFk96NqVlkyGNMVSYbi6RLh6RcbQTffffs+Il1pwtTGHFoo1aunugWI7kVbdA== Message-ID: <1508311867.3957.33.camel@baylibre.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmem: meson: use generic compatible From: Jerome Brunet To: Rob Herring Cc: Martin Blumenstingl , Srinivas Kandagatla , Kevin Hilman , Carlo Caione , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:31:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20171017205204.t4vfvbc2c5nsrnhm@rob-hp-laptop> References: <20171012152450.12454-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <1507923553.30658.10.camel@baylibre.com> <20171017205204.t4vfvbc2c5nsrnhm@rob-hp-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 15:52 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 21:14 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > > > Hi Jerome, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jerome Brunet > > > wrote: > > > > The meson efuse driver 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/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt | 4 ++-- > > > > drivers/nvmem/meson-efuse.c | 2 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt > > > > index fafd85bd67a6..0260524292fe 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt > > > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > > > = Amlogic eFuse device tree bindings = > > > > > > > > Required properties: > > > > -- compatible: should be "amlogic,meson-gxbb-efuse" > > > > +- compatible: should be "amlogic,meson-gx-efuse" > > Same comment as for the firmware. > > > > > > > have you checked with the devicetree maintainers how they want the > > > documentation to look like in this case? > > > > You mean "Should we put every compatible existing (in DT) in the > > documentation" > > From what I've seen, at least in meson drivers, only the matched ones are > > listed. > > > > That's a good question though. > > We tend to put soc specific compatible "in case" we need them later on. > > Should > > we document those ? > > Absolutely. My understanding is that this documentation is the documentation of the bindings used by the driver. If I understand your point, we should document bindings (compatible in that case) that are in fact not fact by the driver. This means that if someone refer only to the documentation, he might be surprised by the result. > > Rob