> On May 8, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Mark Rutland <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 07:38 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On 7 May 2015 at 09:36, Ivan T. Ivanov [email protected]> wrote: >>>> Add initial set of CoreSight components found on Qualcomm's 8x16 chipset. >>>> >>>> >>>> + replicator@824000 { >>>> + compatible = "qcom,coresight-replicator", "arm,primecell"; >>> >>> Shouldn't it be "qcom,coresight-replicator1x" ? >>> >> >> >> >> True, I still wonder, why we have to have this compatible string? >> Drivers are probed by amba_id and "arm,primecell", after all. > > The compatible string tells you both the device _and_ the format of the > other properties, because it tells you which binding applies. > > So the compatible string should be present regardless, as > "arm,primecell" does not define the majority of the properties you need > for the replicator node.
Mmm, only if vendors don’t bother to update version information fused to revision id registers, which happens. And this could be workaround by "arm,primecell-periphid”, no? Regards, Ivan-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
