On Thu, 30 May 2019, Bin Meng wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:13 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walms...@sifive.com>
> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sifive/fu540-prci.c
> > b/drivers/clk/sifive/fu540-prci.c
> > index 2d47ebc6b1..d79d1a5351 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sifive/fu540-prci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sifive/fu540-prci.c
> > @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static struct clk_ops sifive_fu540_prci_ops = {
> > };
> >
> > static const struct udevice_id sifive_fu540_prci_ids[] = {
> > - { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-prci0" },
> > + { .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-prci" },
>
> Can we keep the previous compatible string for compatibility reason?
> U-Boot is now reusing the DT that FSBL passes.
Are there any FSBLs that pass "sifive,fu540-c000-prci0" ? I am not aware
of any.
SiFive FSBLs have only ever used "sifive,aloeprci0" (or
"sifive,ux00prci0") and those will soon be deprecated.
It would be good if the U-Boot maintainers would reject any DT compatible
strings that haven't been committed upstream into the Linux kernel DT
binding repository. Otherwise I foresee this kind of mess increasing if
others decide to invent their own compatible strings.
- Paul
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
