Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org AF7B660388
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] drivers: edac: Add EDAC driver support for QCOM
 SoCs
To:     vnkgutta@codeaurora.org
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, evgreen@chromium.org,
        robh@kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, tsoni@codeaurora.org,
        ckadabi@codeaurora.org, rishabhb@codeaurora.org,
        swboyd@chromium.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org
References: <1536103345-1919-1-git-send-email-vnkgutta@codeaurora.org>
 <1536103345-1919-4-git-send-email-vnkgutta@codeaurora.org>
 <105f8339-61bc-072e-0498-ed44470a5fb8@codeaurora.org>
 <5d8f92b480e1b53e7e04da965d44f7ea@codeaurora.org>
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <b35f111c-0464-dcee-c970-4821f741694b@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:32:01 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5d8f92b480e1b53e7e04da965d44f7ea@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/7/2018 4:01 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote:
>>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = {
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" },
>>> +    { },
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>
>> Hi Venkata,
>>
>> Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible?
> 
> Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add 
> documentation for this or not!
> 

It does not require a separate binding, what I meant was to add this 
compatible in the llcc binding itself, maybe as a subnode if it is correct.