On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800
Guochun Mao [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,
On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon  

quoted

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.
  

quoted

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