Hello Bin,
On Fri, 31 May 2019, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 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.
Just checking in again on this patch. Do you still need
"sifive,fu540-c000-prci0" to be preserved, even though it should be
unused? Or is the original patch OK for you?
- Paul
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
