Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: omap3-gta04: Drop superfluous omap36xx compatible

From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>,
	bcousson@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: omap3-gta04: Drop superfluous omap36xx compatible
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2023 08:54:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6D2A2AA0-759A-4AF8-967A-ED6FE2F6C1BB@goldelico.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231007064439.GN34982@atomide.com>

Hi Tony,

> Am 07.10.2023 um 08:44 schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>:
> 
> * H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> [231004 12:50]:
>> What about the PVR/SGX driver. This needs a compatible that can distinguish
>> between the DM3725 and DM3730. The first is w/o SGX and the second one
>> with. Having all summarized as omap3630 does not allow to load the
>> PVR/SGX driver based on the board specific compatible entry.
>> 
>> AFAIR this was the original idea behind 
>> 
>> 	compatible = "goldelico,gta04", "ti,omap3630", "ti,omap36xx", "ti,omap3"; 
> 
> I think we already handle this, see drivers/bus/ti-sysc.c and search for
> DIS_SGX and similar flags for other accelerators.

Ah, ok. This means that the kernel module isn't loaded if the flags of the chip
are not available. Then we will indeed have no need to describe such variances
in the DTS.

> So I think this patch is
> safe to apply?

Looks so (especially as I only have omap3630 based devices with SGX).

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus