From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:53253 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752228AbdHIHza (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:55:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:55:26 +0200 From: Simon Horman To: Magnus Damm Cc: Linux-Renesas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] ARM, arm64: dts: renesas: Use R-Car GPIO Gen[123] fallback compat strings Message-ID: <20170809075526.GE2705@verge.net.au> References: <1502181568-12299-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:29:28PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > > Use newly added R-Car GPIO Gen 1, 2 and 3 fallback compat strings in place > > of now deprecated non-generation specific R-Car GPIO fallback compat string > > in the DT of Renesas ARM and arm64 based SoCs. > > > > This should have no run-time effect as the driver matches against the > > per-SoC compat string before considering the fallback compat string. > > Thanks for your efforts.I have no issue with your series (apart from > the GPIO and SATA mistake), but at the same time I believe the GPIO > hardware itself is backwards compatible between various generations. > > In the nitpick department I would like to point out that the level of > hardware difference between say R-Car Gen1 GPIO and R-Car Gen2 GPIO is > similar to say good old uarts like 8250 and 16450 hardware. Basically > a couple of registers were added to the hardware in a > backwards-compatible way if I recall correctly. > > So if we are going to use "compatible" to point out if hardware is > compatible or not then I would do this instead: Thanks for your feedback. When the generation specific compat strings were recently added the renesas,gpio-rcar compat string was marked as deprecated as I was under the understanding that it was only compatibile with gen 1 SoCs. It now seems that was not the best thing to do and renesas,gpio-rcar should be re-instated as being a generic fallback for all R-Car versions supported in upstream. Do you concur? > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7796.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7796.dtsi > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ > > gpio0: gpio@e6050000 { > compatible = "renesas,gpio-r8a7796", > + "renesas,rcar-gen3-gpio"; > "renesas,gpio-rcar"; > reg = <0 0xe6050000 0 0x50>; > interrupts = ; > #gpio-cells = <2>; > > At the same time I'm not sure if I care _that_ much. =) > > Thanks, > > / magnus > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:55:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 00/10] ARM, arm64: dts: renesas: Use R-Car GPIO Gen[123] fallback compat strings In-Reply-To: References: <1502181568-12299-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> Message-ID: <20170809075526.GE2705@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:29:28PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > > Use newly added R-Car GPIO Gen 1, 2 and 3 fallback compat strings in place > > of now deprecated non-generation specific R-Car GPIO fallback compat string > > in the DT of Renesas ARM and arm64 based SoCs. > > > > This should have no run-time effect as the driver matches against the > > per-SoC compat string before considering the fallback compat string. > > Thanks for your efforts.I have no issue with your series (apart from > the GPIO and SATA mistake), but at the same time I believe the GPIO > hardware itself is backwards compatible between various generations. > > In the nitpick department I would like to point out that the level of > hardware difference between say R-Car Gen1 GPIO and R-Car Gen2 GPIO is > similar to say good old uarts like 8250 and 16450 hardware. Basically > a couple of registers were added to the hardware in a > backwards-compatible way if I recall correctly. > > So if we are going to use "compatible" to point out if hardware is > compatible or not then I would do this instead: Thanks for your feedback. When the generation specific compat strings were recently added the renesas,gpio-rcar compat string was marked as deprecated as I was under the understanding that it was only compatibile with gen 1 SoCs. It now seems that was not the best thing to do and renesas,gpio-rcar should be re-instated as being a generic fallback for all R-Car versions supported in upstream. Do you concur? > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7796.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7796.dtsi > @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ > > gpio0: gpio at e6050000 { > compatible = "renesas,gpio-r8a7796", > + "renesas,rcar-gen3-gpio"; > "renesas,gpio-rcar"; > reg = <0 0xe6050000 0 0x50>; > interrupts = ; > #gpio-cells = <2>; > > At the same time I'm not sure if I care _that_ much. =) > > Thanks, > > / magnus >