Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add 88E6176 device tree support

Hello Andrew,

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:10:09AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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