Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: Add DTS support for FSL's LS1012A SoC

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:07:17PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:51:01PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:52 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:57:21PM +0530, Bhaskar Upadhaya wrote:

quoted

+		clockgen: clocking@1ee1000 {
+			compatible = "fsl,ls1012a-clockgen";

The compatible cannot be found in binding docs.

From Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qoriq-clock.txt:

- compatible: Should contain a chip-specific clock block compatible
        string and (if applicable) may contain a chassis-version clock
        compatible string.

        Chip-specific strings are of the form "fsl,<chip>-clockgen", such as:
        * "fsl,p2041-clockgen"
        * "fsl,p3041-clockgen"
        * "fsl,p4080-clockgen"
        * "fsl,p5020-clockgen"
        * "fsl,p5040-clockgen"
        * "fsl,t4240-clockgen"
        * "fsl,b4420-clockgen"
        * "fsl,b4860-clockgen"
        * "fsl,ls1021a-clockgen"
        Chassis-version clock strings include:
        * "fsl,qoriq-clockgen-1.0": for chassis 1.0 clocks
        * "fsl,qoriq-clockgen-2.0": for chassis 2.0 clocks

I really hope we don't have to update every single fsl,<chip>-whatever binding
every time a new chip comes out.  There are already other chips not listed,
FWIW (e.g. t1040, t2080, ls1043a, and ls2080a).  That's why it says "such as".

If I remember correctly, DT maintainers want every supported compatible
string explicitly listed in bindings doc.  And they even added a check
into checkpatch.pl with commit bff5da433525 ("checkpatch: add DT
compatible string documentation checks").

See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt:

  5) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
     the following example:

         - compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
           "nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, ...

     As in the above example, the known values of "<chip>" should be
     documented if it is used.

It _is_ allowed to use the <chip> wildcard, and so you will not find all
full compatible strings explicitly listed in bindings.  However, the
chips themselves "should" be listed.

+ Rob and Mark

Oops, I'm not aware of this DT document.  In that case, the DT document
and checkpatch is basically asking for conflicting thing.  Rob, Mark,
can you guys please clarify?

Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html