[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180802095527.GD14203@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:55:27 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC
documentation
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 12:26:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> Not really my problem that they didn't follow the process and upstream
> their binding first. But this alone is just a string identifier, so I
> don't really care that much. If things are really a mess, then the
> next implementations will have to have better compatible strings. More
> likely, I'll just see folks trying to add various properties to deal
> with all the differences.
>
> You could always define a better compatible and leave 'riscv,plic0' as
> a fallback to avoid breaking things.
Is there any better way to define a compatible other than having
duplicate IRQCHIP_DECLARE() statements?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists