Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1564281

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node

From Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@mediatek.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node
Date 2017-01-22 03:40 +0100
Message-ID <t2get-3es-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <t16TT-1vQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <t189j-2dy-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <t1b7b-3XR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <t1g6S-7tL-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <t1lJf-2Aj-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


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.
And if not, is there any other suggestion?

Thanks.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> - 2017-01-17 04:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-01-18 23:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> - 2017-01-19 00:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-01-19 04:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2017-01-19 09:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2017-01-19 15:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@mediatek.com> - 2017-01-22 03:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node John Crispin <john@phrozen.org> - 2017-01-24 11:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2017-01-24 11:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2017-01-19 09:00 +0100

csiph-web