[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211004185920.26iyyq3xz7vjam5i@gentile>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:59:20 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@...com>,
Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>,
Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@...tralsolutions.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: ti: am642/am654: Allow for SoC
only compatibles
On 12:54-20211004, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 03:14:28PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Maintain consistency in K3 SoCs by allowing AM654 and AM642 platforms
> > just state SoC compatibles without specific board specific compatibles
> > aligned with what we have done for J721E/J7200 platforms as well.
>
> This is the wrong direction IMO. Why do you want this other than
> alignment?
Many downstream boards tend not to have an specific compatible at least
during initial phase and I would like folks to start using checks to
make sure that the easy to catch issues via match against bindings are
already handled.
I am curious as to why you think this is wrong - because we permit an
alternative option that allows the board files to be less specific?
[...]
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D)/Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
Powered by blists - more mailing lists