On 03/17/2016 01:57 AM, Gang Liu wrote:

On 3/17/2016 2:47 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 03/10/2016 03:06 AM, Liu Gang wrote:

quoted

The ls1043a belongs to the Freescale QorIQ platform, and QorIQ
platform's gpio nodes should use compatible "fsl,qoriq-gpio".

Why?  I don't see any version register anything else in this block that
could be used to identify potential differences from chip to chip.  At
the least, both compatibles should be present.

Where is the binding for this?

-Scott

Hi, Scott,
Currently all QorIQ platform's GPIO IP blocks are same, they are all no
version register,
and have same registers, offset address and other features, so the code
can cover all of
them.

So?  We have no idea what the hardware people will do in the future.

There is just one exceptional ls2080, it has the little-endian GPIO
registers, and we added
a "little-endian" property in the GPIO nodes.

Add in addition, we have deeply discussed about the GPIO compatible name
before, you
suggested using "fsl,qoriq-gpio" for all the QorIQ platforms. Please
find some excerpt
from former mail context.

It's in established use so I won't suggest that we get rid of it.  But
ideally the chip-specific compatible should be in the device tree (not
the driver until/unless necessary) as well, so it seemed odd to get rid
of it.

If we were starting from scratch, then instead of "fsl,qoriq-gpio" it
should have been a chip-based compatible for some arbitrary chip that
contains this exact logic (in addition to the chip-specific compatible
for the actual chip).  Neither case requires adding every chip name to
the driver.

-Scott