Hello Andrew, On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:10:09AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Try to see it from my perspective: I see that some vf610 device I don't > > have (found via `git grep marvell,mv88e6` or so) uses > > "marvell,mv88e6085". I then assume it has that device on board. How > > would I know it doesn't? Same for the other boards you mention. > > > > Unfortunately some of your replies are slightly cryptic. Had you simply > > replied 'please just use "marvell,mv88e6085" instead', it would've been > > much more clear what you want. (Same for extending the subject instead > > of just pointing to some FAQ.) > > By reading the FAQ you have learnt more than me saying put the correct > tree in the subject line. By asking you to explain why you need a > compatible string, i'm trying to make you think, look at the code and > understand it. In the future, you might think and understand the code > before posting a patch, and then we all save time.
I agree to Andreas though, that it makes an school teacher impression.
Something like:
Please fix the subject. Check the FAQ for the details, which btw
is worth a read completely.
is IMHO better in this regard and once you found the problem there you
don't need to ask back if it's that what was meant.
> > So are you okay with patch 1/2 documenting the compatible? Then we could
> > drop 2/2 and use "marvell,mv88e6176", "marvell,mv88e6085" instead of
> > just the latter. Or would you rather drop both and keep the actual chip
> > a comment?
>
> A comment only please.
I still wonder (and didn't get an answer back when I asked about this)
why a comment is preferred here. For other devices I know it's usual and
requested by the maintainers to use:
compatible = "exact name", "earlyer device to match driver";
. This is more robust, documents the situation more formally and makes
it better greppable. The price to pay is only a few bytes in the dtb
which IMO is ok.
Best regards
Uwe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
