lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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:
> > 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.

> > 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
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-28 09:10    [W:2.354 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site