Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Aug 2014 09:09:04 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/13] thermal: rcar: Document SoC-specific bindings | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Morimoto-san,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Required properties: >> >> > > -- compatible : "renesas,rcar-thermal" >> >> > > +- compatible : "renesas,thermal-<soctype>", "renesas,rcar-thermal" >> >> > > + as fallback. >> >> > > + Examples with soctypes are: >> >> > > + - "renesas,thermal-r8a73a4" (R-Mobile AP6) >> >> > > + - "renesas,thermal-r8a7779" (R-Car H1) >> >> > > + - "renesas,thermal-r8a7790" (R-Car H2) >> >> > > + - "renesas,thermal-r8a7791" (R-Car M2) >> >> > > - reg : Address range of the thermal registers. >> >> > > The 1st reg will be recognized as common register >> >> > > if it has "interrupts". > (snip) >> One important thing to note in my patch description is "some of which >> are already in use.". >> >> $ git grep renesas,thermal -- arch/arm/boot/ | cat >> arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790.dtsi: compatible = >> "renesas,thermal-r8a7790", "renesas,rcar-thermal"; >> arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791.dtsi: compatible = >> "renesas,thermal-r8a7791", "renesas,rcar-thermal"; >> $ >> >> So these 2 should be added to the documentation for sure. >> Adding the 2 others, and adding them to the respective DTSes (cfr. the >> other patches in the series) doesn't hurt, and will help if an incompatibility >> ever arises. >> >> (I assume the driver works with the other DTSes that already claim to have >> a device compatible with "renesas,rcar-thermal"). > > I reconsidered about this. > Actually, I'm still wondering about this approach > because driver side doesn't have SoC specific matching table. > Of course SoC-specific name in .compatible can be backup plan for us, > but, we don't know it is 100% true. > (we might have new driver for some specific SoC, like R-Car DMA driver ?) > > Adding to SoC specific compatible name in SoC side DTSes are no problem, > it can be backup plan. > but, we can't say 100% true that <driver>.txt has SoC specific name list. > because, driver doesn't care about it today, and we don't know the future
If the SoC-specific name is used in a DTS, it must[*] be documented in the bindings. Checkpatch.pl checks for that.
[*] The only exception is devices for which no driver exists yet. But then the bindings are preliminary and in limbo.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |