On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:50 AM Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 12:26:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

Not really my problem that they didn't follow the process and upstream
their binding first. But this alone is just a string identifier, so I
don't really care that much. If things are really a mess, then the
next implementations will have to have better compatible strings. More
likely, I'll just see folks trying to add various properties to deal
with all the differences.

You could always define a better compatible and leave 'riscv,plic0' as
a fallback to avoid breaking things.

Is there any better way to define a compatible other than having
duplicate IRQCHIP_DECLARE() statements?

No, but you only need the fallback if the compatible is
'"sifive,plic0", "riscv,plic0";'.

Rob