On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:36:50PM +1100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

Hello,

(Side note: you guys should learn about stripping irrelevant parts of
an e-mail when replying!)

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:40:32 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

quoted

Well this is OK I guess, but then you can also use "mediatek,mt8173-nor"
as the oldest supported compatible and be done with it, no ? It looks a
bit crappy though, I admit that ...

Let's stop bikeshedding and wait for DT maintainers feedback
before taking a decision ;-).

Rob, Mark, any opinion?

Sigh, is how to do compatibles really not yet understood?
 

I agree that a clarification would be good. There are really two
options:

 1. Have two compatible strings in the DT, the one that matches the
    exact SoC where the IP is found (first compatible string) and the
    one that matches some other SoC where the same IP is found (second
    compatible string). Originally, Linux only supports the second
    compatible string in its device driver, but if it happens that a
    difference is found between two IPs that we thought were the same,
    we can add support for the first compatible string in the driver,
    with a slightly different behavior.

This. And no wildcards in the compatible string. 

 2. Have a single compatible string in the DT, matching the exact SoC
    where the IP is found. This involves adding immediately this
    compatible string in the corresponding driver.

I wouldn't object to this from a DT perspective as I have no clue 
generally if IP blocks are "the same" or not. Subsystem maintainers will 
object though.

I've not really been able to figure out which of the two options is the
most future-proof/appropriate.

They are both future-proof. #2 has the disadvantage of requiring a 
kernel update for a new SoC. 

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html