On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Wilken Gottwalt wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 14:12:44 +0100 > Maxime Ripard <mrip...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:03:28PM +0100, Wilken Gottwalt wrote: > > > Adds documentation on how to use the sun6i_hwspinlock driver for sun6i > > > compatible series SoCs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wilken Gottwalt <wilken.gottw...@posteo.net> > > > --- > > > Changes in v6: > > > - fixed formating and name issues in dt documentation > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > - changed binding to earliest known supported SoC sun6i-a31 > > > - dropped unnecessary entries > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - changed binding to sun8i-a33-hwpinlock > > > - added changes suggested by Maxime Ripard > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - changed symbols from sunxi to sun8i > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - fixed memory ranges > > > --- > > > .../hwlock/allwinner,sun6i-hwspinlock.yaml | 45 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > The name of the file doesn't match the compatible, once fixed: > > Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <mrip...@kernel.org> > > This is something that still confuses me. What if you have more than one > compatible string?
In this case, it's fairly easy there's only one :) But we're following the same rule than the compatible: the first SoC that got the compatible wins > This won't be solvable. See the qcom binding for example, > there are two strings and none matches. In the omap bindings are also two > strings and only one matches. In all cases, including mine, the bindings > check script is fine with that. If other platforms want to follow other rules, good for them :) > So, you basically want it to be called > "allwinner,sun6i-a31-hwspinlock.yaml"? Yes Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
