Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753918AbcK0XKY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:10:24 -0500 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([178.209.37.122]:58883 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752203AbcK0XKR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2016 18:10:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:10:09 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Michal Hrusecki , Tomas Hlavacek , Bed??icha Ko??atu , Vivien Didelot , Florian Fainelli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add 88E6176 device tree support Message-ID: <20161127231009.GA17704@lunn.ch> References: <1480280279-9552-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1480280279-9552-2-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <20161127212709.GD13318@lunn.ch> <9500470d-09c3-3ecb-994b-3d108bffc99e@suse.de> <20161127220846.GH13318@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1126 Lines: 25 > 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. > 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. Thanks Andrew