[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a8fddf74-9f95-9bc8-6e4f-5fb654c6a43c@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:40:10 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@...ek.ca>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
"open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] soundwire: qcom: add v1.5.1 compatible
On 09/06/2020 12:17, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> On 6/9/20 1:26 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 08-06-20, 16:43, Jonathan Marek wrote:
>>> Add a compatible string for HW version v1.5.1 on sm8250 SoCs.
>>
>> Please document this new compatible
>>
>
> Does it really need to be documented? The documentation already says the
> compatible should be "qcom,soundwire-v<MAJOR>.<MINOR>.<STEP>". It gives
> "qcom,soundwire-v1.5.0" as an example, which is not actually a supported
> compatible, so my understanding is we don't need to update the list of
> examples with every possible compatible.
checkpatch should have reported about this, and in future once we
convert to yaml and list the compatible strings then dt_binding_check
would fail too. So there is no harm in adding an additional compatible
string for this new entry.
--srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists