From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:37257 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751872AbdHILL1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:11:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id f38so3224536wrf.4 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 04:11:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170809082210.GH2705@verge.net.au> References: <1502181568-12299-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20170809075526.GE2705@verge.net.au> <20170809082210.GH2705@verge.net.au> From: Magnus Damm Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:11:24 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] ARM, arm64: dts: renesas: Use R-Car GPIO Gen[123] fallback compat strings To: Simon Horman Cc: Linux-Renesas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Simon, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:55:26AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: >> 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? > > I posted a patch to un-deprecate the renesas,gpio-rcar compat string > in the bindings documentation. > > [PATCH] gpio: rcar: reinstate generic compat string Thanks, this looks good to me. I would like to hear what Geert thinks as well! Cheers, / magnus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: magnus.damm@gmail.com (Magnus Damm) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:11:24 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 00/10] ARM, arm64: dts: renesas: Use R-Car GPIO Gen[123] fallback compat strings In-Reply-To: <20170809082210.GH2705@verge.net.au> References: <1502181568-12299-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20170809075526.GE2705@verge.net.au> <20170809082210.GH2705@verge.net.au> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Simon, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:55:26AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: >> 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? > > I posted a patch to un-deprecate the renesas,gpio-rcar compat string > in the bindings documentation. > > [PATCH] gpio: rcar: reinstate generic compat string Thanks, this looks good to me. I would like to hear what Geert thinks as well! Cheers, / magnus