[PATCH v8 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: qcom,tcsr: document ipq6018 compatible

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 02:46:24PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos.co.il>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,tcsr.txt | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,tcsr.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,tcsr.txt
> index e90519d566a3..c5f4f0ddfcc3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,tcsr.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,tcsr.txt
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ registers via syscon.
>  
>  Required properties:
>  - compatible:	Should contain:
> +		"qcom,tcsr-ipq6018", "syscon", "simple-mfd" for IPQ6018
>  		"qcom,tcsr-ipq8064", "syscon" for IPQ8064
>  		"qcom,tcsr-apq8064", "syscon" for APQ8064
>  		"qcom,tcsr-msm8660", "syscon" for MSM8660

I wonder about why qcom,tcsr-ipq6018 should use simple-mfd, but the
others don't. Assuming there is a deeper reason, mentioning that in the
commit log (or depending on the reason maybe even in the binding?)
sounds sensible.

Best regards
Uwe


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20211104/739fe29a/attachment-0001.sig>