[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YIa0X2CfYBokmMIY@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:38:55 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>,
kernel@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 08/10] net: dsa: microchip: Add Microchip
KSZ8863 SMI based driver support
> > > +static const struct of_device_id ksz8863_dt_ids[] = {
> > > + { .compatible = "microchip,ksz8863" },
> > > + { .compatible = "microchip,ksz8873" },
> > > + { },
> > > +};
> >
> > Is there code somewhere which verifies that what has been found really
> > does match what is in device tree? We don't want errors in the device
> > tree to be ignored.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Hm, it makes sense. But it is not regression of this patches, is it OK
> to mainline it separately?
Yes, but please don't forget it. Without verification, DT writers will
get it wrong. And then it becomes useless because you have to assume
it is wrong. Otherwise you break backwards compatibility.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists