Hi Geert,

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 08:10:13PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

Hi Eduardo,

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Eduardo Valentin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:12:32AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

  - r8a7792 (R-Car V2H)
  - r8a7793 (R-Car M2-N)
  - r8a7794 (R-Car E2)

r8a7791 is now called "R-Car M2-W".

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

I don't have any concerns on this patch and will be adding to my next
branch. But before that, I have one simple question. Although the

Thanks!

quoted

binding description mention about soc types, the rcar thermal driver do
not differentiate soc types, only supports the "renesas,rcar-thermal"
compatible.

Do you care explaining why we need the soc specific compatibles?

The reason we also have the SoC-specific values is that we are not
100% sure the thermal IP cores in the Renesas R-Car Gen1 and R-Car Gen2
series are really identical.

Currently the driver treats all of them the same, but if we ever discover
a difference, and the driver needs to start distinguishing among different
versions, we will need to have the SoC-specific values in the DTSes to
do so.

In this case, wouldn't make sense to find out first the differences
before changing DT documentation?

Otherwise, you may also figure out that there is no difference and
then send a patch to remove the changes you are sending now
(or even removing the -<soc specific> parts).

I hope this explains our rationale.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds