On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

2017-11-09 21:57 GMT+08:00 Rob Herring [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2017-11-08 21:18 GMT+08:00 Rob Herring [off-list ref]:

quoted

Please Cc the DT list on bindings.

Sorry. I am not sure what you mean.
Do you mean add devicetree@vger.kernel.org to cc list?

Yes. Use get_maintainers.pl as a guide.

Roger that! Thanks!

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Greentime Hu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Greentime Hu <redacted>

quoted

quoted

quoted

+                       device_type = "cpu";
+                       compatible = "andestech,n13", "andestech,n15";

n13 is a superset of n15?

No, they are independent ones.

Then having both is not valid. The strings should be in order of best
match to worst match where worst match is typically either older
implementations of IP blocks or generic'ish strings such as "ns16550"
for a UART.

Thanks.
I would like to explain it more clearly.
They are independent ones in implementations.
They are implemented based on the same nds32 ISA and architecture spec
with different configurations
like cache size, page size, cache type(VIPT/PIPT), pipeline stages...
Most of them are compatible.
They use the same toolchain to build vmlinux which can run on
different nds32 cores.

Du you have a name for the ISA spec that distinguishes it from other nds32
versions that are incompatible? If you do, this could be written like

compatible = "andestech,n13", "andestech,nds32v3.0";

to signify that a an 'n13' core implements the 'v3.0' ISA (will it
whatever you call the ISA in reality).

       Arnd