From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752843AbcGYNvJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:51:09 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:33570 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752703AbcGYNu6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:50:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:50:50 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Rob Herring Cc: Grzegorz Jaszczyk , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Rutland , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Russell King - ARM Linux , Gregory CLEMENT , Marcin Wojtas , Lior Amsalem Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family Message-ID: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> Organization: Free Electrons X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the > > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit > > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing > > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 > > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. > > But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the > string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if > the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 > without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 will also apply to 398. Now, whether it is a good idea to consider them "compatible" in the DT sense, I'm not sure. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:50:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Grzegorz Jaszczyk , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Rutland , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Russell King - ARM Linux , Gregory CLEMENT , Marcin Wojtas , Lior Amsalem List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the > > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit > > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing > > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 > > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. > > But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the > string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if > the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 > without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 will also apply to 398. Now, whether it is a good idea to consider them "compatible" in the DT sense, I'm not sure. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:50:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family In-Reply-To: References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the > > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit > > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing > > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 > > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. > > But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the > string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if > the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 > without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 will also apply to 398. Now, whether it is a good idea to consider them "compatible" in the DT sense, I'm not sure. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com