[PATCH v2] ARM: mvebu: Fix missing binding documentation for Armada 38x

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> For the Armada 380 and Armada 385 SoCs, the common bindings for those
>> 2 SoCs, was forgotten. This patch add the documentation for the
>> marvell,aramda38x property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement at free-electrons.com>
>> --
>> Hi,
>>
>> This fix should be merged in 3.16. For 3.15 I am not sure as it is not
>> a regression.
>>
>> Changelog:
>> v1->v2
>>
>> - Reformulate to make clear that we will need marvell,armada38x _and_ a
>> SoC specific string. For consistency I duplicated what we have done in
>> armada-370-xp.txt
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gregory
>>
>>
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> index 11f2330a6554..fa08760046df 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> @@ -6,5 +6,18 @@ following property:
>>
>>  Required root node property:
>>
>> - - compatible: must contain either "marvell,armada380" or
>> -   "marvell,armada385" depending on the variant of the SoC being used.
>> +compatible: must contain "marvell,armada38x"
>
> I agree with Sergei on this one.  We generally avoid wildcards in
> compatible strings.  Is there a use case where specifying one of the
> below wouldn't be sufficient?

Isn't this a case of just documenting what is already in use?

I agree wildcards alone are not good, but along with a specific
compatible is okay. But also there should be some need to have the
common property.

Rob