On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 09:06:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 06:32:52PM -0600, Kerigan Creighton wrote: > > Add a qcom,wcn3610 compatible string. > > The WCN3610 shares the same register configuration as the > > WCN3620, so its configuration is being reused. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kerigan Creighton <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > > - Move remoteproc compatible string addition to the middle of > > the patch set. > > - Add Reviewed-by Dmitry (thanks!) > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c > > b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c > > index 2b89b4db6c..e58b59355f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_wcnss_iris.c > > @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ void qcom_iris_disable(struct qcom_iris *iris) > > } > > > > static const struct of_device_id iris_of_match[] = { > > + { .compatible = "qcom,wcn3610", .data = &wcn3620_data }, > > So compatible with wcn3620? Why are you adding it in such case? Drop the > change and express compatibility or explain lack of it in the bindings > patch.
I'd say, keep the compatible. It's used in the next patch. But yes, it might need some epxlanation. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- With best wishes Dmitry
