On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:39:33PM +0800, yu-chang.lee wrote:
> MT8188 VPPSYS 0/1 should be probed from mtk-mmsys driver to
> populate device by platform_device_register_data then start
> its own clock driver.
How does one operating system's driver probing model render these
compatibles invalid?
Cheers,
Conor.
>
> Signed-off-by: yu-chang.lee <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/mediatek,mt8188-clock.yaml | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mediatek,mt8188-clock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mediatek,mt8188-clock.yaml
> index d7214d97b2ba..860570320545 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mediatek,mt8188-clock.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/mediatek,mt8188-clock.yaml
> @@ -43,8 +43,6 @@ properties:
> - mediatek,mt8188-vdecsys
> - mediatek,mt8188-vdecsys-soc
> - mediatek,mt8188-vencsys
> - - mediatek,mt8188-vppsys0
> - - mediatek,mt8188-vppsys1
> - mediatek,mt8188-wpesys
> - mediatek,mt8188-wpesys-vpp0
>
> --
> 2.18.0
>
>
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 01:13:47PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:39:33PM +0800, yu-chang.lee wrote:
> > MT8188 VPPSYS 0/1 should be probed from mtk-mmsys driver to
> > populate device by platform_device_register_data then start
> > its own clock driver.
>
> How does one operating system's driver probing model render these
> compatibles invalid?
I see there are 2 patches in the series. Merging them into one would
likely make it easier to explain the hardware-related reason for this
change.