[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9067ca94-cd5d-6883-d0e0-374ed7f599ad@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:21:22 +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
On 29/09/2022 14:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
>>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
>>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
>>>
>>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
>>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?
>>
>> The actual PMIC is an PM8018
>
> And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS:
> qcom,pm8018
> qcom,pm8018-rtc
> qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
> qcom,pm8018-gpio
And this is why I pushed the removal of qcom,pm8921* fallback compatibles,
except for qcom,pm8018-pwrkey because I didn't managed to get it documented at the time.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists