On Fri, 08 May 2015, Peter Griffin wrote:

On Fri, 08 May 2015, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 
-- compatible 	: Must be one of: "st,stih407-lpc" "st,stih416-lpc"
-				  "st,stih415-lpc" "st,stid127-lpc"
+- compatible 	: Must be one of: "st,stih407-lpc"

The same comment as the RTC DT patch, you are removing the compatibles
documentation for the other supported platforms like stih416-lpc.
AFAIK they are required in the driver to get the correct sysconfig register.

That's intentional.  I haven't yet tested any of this IP on
STiH41{5,6} & STiH127.  Due to lack of documentation, I'm not even
sure if this IP even exists on some of the other platforms.  I will
add them back when support is added to both driver and DTB and I've
been able to test them.

That was kind of my point, the driver code AFAIK already contains support
for these SoC's.

I would either expect the patch to remove support from the DT docs AND the
driver, or leave it as is.

It seems odd to only change the DT docs, and become unaligned to the
code (this assumes I'm looking at the latest patchset here 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/4/1088 which includes support for these SoCs).

The decision to remove these 'supported' platforms was made on the RTC
side, where there is only support for "st,stih407-lpc" in the driver.

The change makes sense in the RTC case then.

quoted

I thought it best to mirror that thought over to the Watchdog LPC
bindings,

Why? This is the bit I disagree with, the wdt DT docs IMHO should match the wdt
driver code.

Fair enough.  I'll add the 'supported' compatibles back in.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog