[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7h8tg7zb6t.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:25:30 +0200
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: meson-sm: use generic compatible
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> The meson secure monitor 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 <jbrunet@...libre.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/meson/meson_sm.txt | 4 ++--
>> drivers/firmware/meson/meson_sm.c | 4 ++--
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Seems like a pointless, not backwards compatible change to me.
I've verified that it's backwards compatible with existing upstream DTs.
> end, it's just a string to match on. Who cares what the string is.
As platform maintiner, I very much care what the strings are and I want
it to be coherent with the platform generic names, and I want the
SoC-specific strings to correspond to the actual SoC names.
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists