Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: tps65086: Add DT bindings for the TPS65086 PMIC

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:26:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> > > I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it
> > > for the aforementioned reasons.  I can also find 1000's of compatible
> > > strings which do append "-<device_type>", so it's not exactly an
> > > unheard of practice.

> > It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible strings
> > that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it -
> > we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising.  I'm not
> > really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words
> > for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT).

> I'm not *that* fussed about it to justify starting-up wider community
> discussions.

> My only point is that:

>   compatible = "<vendor>,udw9283";

> ... is meaningless gibberish and I think it'd be better to be more
> forthcoming which prevents having to dig around in DTS files for the
> node name/label for true device/type identification.

What I suspect most people actually do here is google the part name if
it's not obvious from context (presumably people with a compatible
string only are either looking at the driver or some DT source
instantiating it).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature