Re: [PATCH] nvmem: meson: use generic compatible

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 15:52 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 21:14 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>> > > Hi Jerome,
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > The meson efuse driver seems to be compatible with more SoCs than
>> > > > initially thought. Let's use the most generic compatible he have in
>> > > > DT instead of the gxbb specific one
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt | 4 ++--
>> > > >  drivers/nvmem/meson-efuse.c                               | 2 +-
>> > > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt
>> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt
>> > > > index fafd85bd67a6..0260524292fe 100644
>> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt
>> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/amlogic-efuse.txt
>> > > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>> > > >  = Amlogic eFuse device tree bindings =
>> > > >
>> > > >  Required properties:
>> > > > -- compatible: should be "amlogic,meson-gxbb-efuse"
>> > > > +- compatible: should be "amlogic,meson-gx-efuse"
>>
>> Same comment as for the firmware.
>>
>> > >
>> > > have you checked with the devicetree maintainers how they want the
>> > > documentation to look like in this case?
>> >
>> > You mean "Should we put every compatible existing (in DT) in the
>> > documentation"
>> > From what I've seen, at least in meson drivers, only the matched ones are
>> > listed.
>> >
>> > That's a good question though.
>> > We tend to put soc specific compatible "in case"  we need them later on.
>> > Should
>> > we document those ?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> My understanding is that this documentation is the documentation of the bindings
> used by the driver.

No, the binding doc should be sufficient to validate the dts.

> If I understand your point, we should document bindings (compatible in that
> case) that are in fact not fact by the driver. This means that if someone refer
> only to the documentation, he might be surprised by the result.

How so?

Rob