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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:45:58 -0700
From:   vnkgutta@codeaurora.org
To:     Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] drivers: edac: Add EDAC driver support for QCOM
 SoCs
In-Reply-To: <b35f111c-0464-dcee-c970-4821f741694b@codeaurora.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>
 <b35f111c-0464-dcee-c970-4821f741694b@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <b5d9a1dc741e09db6d4044f4d82f83d9@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-09-06 22:02, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> 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.

Hi,

We aren't really using this of_device_id structure, as this driver is 
being registered from LLCC through
platform_register_device_data(...). This structure initialization is 
just dead code as this driver won't be probed based on the DT entries.

Hence removing this compatible property and the corresponding struct in 
the next patchset.

So, this doesn't need an extra binding/documentation.