From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 09:50:20 +0000 (+0200) Subject: docs: dt: writing-bindings: Rephrase typical fallback (superset) usage X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=49ed6868c10e2a11bb44ea836ecf88ca4122f303;p=thirdparty%2Flinux.git docs: dt: writing-bindings: Rephrase typical fallback (superset) usage When speaking about compatibles for new devices comparing to "prior implementations", usually we expect new device to come with more features, thus logically it is a superset, not subset, of "prior implementations". Suggested-by: Conor Dooley Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250707095019.66792-4-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) --- diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst index 1ad081de2dd04..66c94b5adc871 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ Properties ========== - DO make 'compatible' properties specific. DON'T use wildcards in compatible - strings. DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset - of prior implementations. DO add new compatibles in case there are new - features or bugs. + strings. DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a + superset of prior implementations. DO add new compatibles in case there are + new features or bugs. - DO use a vendor prefix on device-specific property names. Consider if properties could be common among devices of the same class. Check other