[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170124113118.304a860c@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:18 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@...iatek.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800
Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@...iatek.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon
> > > One last question and I'm done: is something like that acceptable?
> > >
> > > compatible = "<vendor>,<old-soc>","<vendor>,<new-soc>";
> > >
> > > This can happen when someone adds support for an unsupported feature
> > > on a brand new SoC, and then someone else use the same driver for an
> > > older SoC embedding the same IP but still wants to add a new compatible
> > > just in case these 2 IPs appear to be slightly different.
> >
> > Yes, it's old and new compatible strings in this case and it's newest
> > compatible string first.
> >
> > > Here the order of compat strings is no longer following a clear rule
> > > like 'most-specific compatible first' or 'newest IP/SoC version first',
> > > it's completely dependent on the order these IPs were supported in the
> > > OS (Linux). I'm perfectly fine with that BTW, just want to make sure
> > > this is authorized.
> >
> > I guess we should say "newest compatible for IP first" instead. There
> > are some exceptions where we add fallbacks later on, but that falls
> > under the most-specific part.
> >
> > It's order that the bindings are defined, not Linux support really,
> > but in practice those are the same.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Thanks for all your effort for code reviewing.
> Our mt2701-nor's hardware is designed base on mt8713-nor,
> even so, there would be some slight difference.
> If I don't misunderstand your viewpoint in this discussion,
> there's no need to drop mt2701-nor compatible.
No, just update the documentation as suggested by Rob.
> And if not, is there any other suggestion?
Nope, and my apologies for being so insistent on something I obviously
misunderstood.
Regards,
Boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists