Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1564281
| 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 |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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