On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:17:12PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
quoted
On May 8, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 07:38 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
quoted
On 7 May 2015 at 09:36, Ivan T. Ivanov ivanov at linaro.org> wrote:
quoted
Add initial set of CoreSight components found on Qualcomm's 8x16 chipset.
+ replicator at 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?
No. That only tells you the identity of the device, not the format of
the binding.
Thanks,
Mark.