From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932637AbcFJUcJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:32:09 -0400 Received: from mail.savoirfairelinux.com ([208.88.110.44]:32985 "EHLO mail.savoirfairelinux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751440AbcFJUcH (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:32:07 -0400 From: Vivien Didelot To: Andrew Lunn Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fail on mismatching probe In-Reply-To: <20160609022149.GF2227@lunn.ch> References: <20160609004456.5441-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20160609004456.5441-9-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20160609022149.GF2227@lunn.ch> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:32:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87fuskkcos.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Andrew Lunn writes: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:44:56PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: >> Now that we have access at probe time to the chip info described in the >> device tree, check if the probed device matches the device node, >> otherwise warn the user and fail. > > What good is this? So what if the device tree says a different > model. We don't care, we don't use that information at all, we read it > from the device itself. So we can end up with a badly described device tree. It seems to be a question of rigor vs. flexibility. I don't know much about the DT philosophy and I don't really mind as long as we warn the user. I'd like to have other opinions on this though before pushing v2. Thanks, Vivien