[PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
robh at kernel.org
Thu Nov 10 06:12:15 PST 2016
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol.
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power
>>> Required properties:
>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>> +- compatible : should be
>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or
>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0
>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there
> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not
> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very
> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific
> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason
> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks
> based on them if needed.
> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's
> clear why we can't do version based compatible.
This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform
specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because
who knows what version they followed and they may all be different.
More information about the linux-amlogic