[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJnefpETGJm_cuRY@shikoro>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:13:50 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Luca Weiss <luca@...aweiss.eu>
Cc: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com>,
Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] i2c: qcom-cci: Add msm8953 compatible
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 05:37:53PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Add a config for the v1.2.5 CCI found on msm8953 which has different
Given the above version number...
> static const struct of_device_id cci_dt_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8226-cci", .data = &cci_v1_data},
> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8953-cci", .data = &cci_msm8953_data},
... why don't we use it here to stay consistent? cci_v1_2_5_data?
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-cci", .data = &cci_v1_5_data},
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-cci", .data = &cci_v2_data},
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists