[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f363c1ce-8612-476e-a5d5-c3cb358bf50a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:39:05 +0100
From: Artur Weber <aweber.kernel@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>, Ray Jui
<rjui@...adcom.com>, Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Stanislav Jakubek <stano.jakubek@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/10] mfd: bcm590xx: Add PMU ID/revision parsing
function
On 13.03.2025 14:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 01:20:36PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2025, Artur Weber wrote:
>
>>> + if (id != bcm590xx->pmu_id) {
>>> + dev_err(bcm590xx->dev,
>>> + "Incorrect ID for %s: expected %x, got %x. Check your DT compatible.\n",
>>
>> Isn't it more likely that the H/W this is being executed on is
>> unsupported? If so, say that instead.
>
> Given that the compatibles are device specific the driver shouldn't be
> binding if the device is unsupported.
Yes, the intention here is just to make sure that the DT compatible and
hardware ID match. Unsupported hardware would not have a DT compatible.
Best regards
Artur
Powered by blists - more mailing lists