[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ed642ea-424d-49ed-eb30-e09588720373@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:29:22 +0200
From: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic
subnodes compatibles
Hi,
On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
>
> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
> not make sense, please say why.
We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...
As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?
>
>>
>> The pwrkey compatible is left to PM8921, unlike the others because
>> the interface is stricly compatible with the PM9821 pwrkey.
>
> typo: strictly
> typo: PM8921
>
> Again, why? The old code looked correct. In all three places.
The qcom,pm8018-rtc require a single compatible, same for qcom,pm8018, so what's the way to fix it ?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Thanks,
Neil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists