From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([94.23.35.102]:34873 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754126Ab3GPLUU (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:20:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:17 +0200 From: Maxime Ripard To: Nicolas Ferre Cc: Josh Wu , plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, jic23@cam.ac.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] iio: at91: Use different prescal, startup mask in MR for different IP Message-ID: <20130716112017.GC3125@lukather> References: <1373789069-11604-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <1373789069-11604-3-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20130715125815.GC2962@lukather> <51E505EA.4060502@atmel.com> <51E50864.6020904@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uXxzq0nDebZQVNAZ" In-Reply-To: <51E50864.6020904@atmel.com> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org --uXxzq0nDebZQVNAZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >>capabilities from which compatible is declared. > >> > >>It seems safer. >=20 > I see it as handier in the sense that a different IP version can be > compatible with an older IP version: so we do not need to modify the > driver just to use another SoC. >=20 > On your side Maxime, what makes you say that it is "safer"? Well, the register holding the IP version seem to be not programmed in some cases (or, at least, the driver handles this case). So, what would happen if one SoC was in such case? You wouldn't be able to use the ADC/touchscreen, even though the IP in itself might very well work, which doesn't sound very nice, while the DT will always be there, and will always have a compatible property. > >Ok, that make sense. I will use compatible names for the capabilities in > >next version. Thanks. >=20 > Hold on a little bit Josh, I know that Jean-Christophe is not in > favor of the use of multiple compatible strings. So, as the code is > already there, let's wait and see if we find another argument... And you know my feeling about this for quite some time already ;) Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --uXxzq0nDebZQVNAZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5SxxAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAgpJ0QAIgmK1LhoTluGXlgkyuZk618 G0cg3HHBm62DwPStYWOpWiL/Vsz50OoWKTf5O4PSFiXnKR7v0D8tLMncnQVPP7Ae IKajDiDB7lgsA/DeTkM3+QxOXIiB0mPqV6Y6W7RGQ0fCD5hLmnx4chyz80+61VFc tuAuYIyIxpSZgxEKRlxtDHiNrwu2ynvdixLhOx3UK3qG98CXC+qI0ebElbrHo+sn YLW5kPKJME7mIaJm+luLYSE+/AIQyvtAkJzbUWjj+I6KJeY3lli0IFs/euE6iwGV AK6gE+MMb/9dVS37Rwi+dhSe3vbMrJKBOF+4h2Mxn+2BTbNz9vmTthEHGB1m+9Eg 1xKM2GJdlnMlHlsCxKcoIjAX3CX/+q86/OGGYfPuGOE6kcYSFcGLdocS4RsMUbGU js9jntAyd8gjGzDIDJQ0Pi9QJAkIFY4zPizI0bETIx14gQ+JEPc0nS3oyYa/9yjU /jKH5uXS/4W8oU8qbMJn/2j/dhlxnCCVGgt08U8VgKQpt1XLOv1E0lsFk65g2eXa DUv1D0BYy+gWhtFlHnq4ucruqVtxFSHHtPOgqclGue/NRHWPSUX8cK/e+O+qjiCi img1fgK/neDdyj3Zd1EJ7ps6iLKCUQAx9+fvUVs9eVQnUmGdkJyZPX6/QGzVL7X3 2Wvb6qCCk1aUf5br3ZGS =sJqn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uXxzq0nDebZQVNAZ-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:20:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] iio: at91: Use different prescal, startup mask in MR for different IP In-Reply-To: <51E50864.6020904@atmel.com> References: <1373789069-11604-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <1373789069-11604-3-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20130715125815.GC2962@lukather> <51E505EA.4060502@atmel.com> <51E50864.6020904@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20130716112017.GC3125@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >>capabilities from which compatible is declared. > >> > >>It seems safer. > > I see it as handier in the sense that a different IP version can be > compatible with an older IP version: so we do not need to modify the > driver just to use another SoC. > > On your side Maxime, what makes you say that it is "safer"? Well, the register holding the IP version seem to be not programmed in some cases (or, at least, the driver handles this case). So, what would happen if one SoC was in such case? You wouldn't be able to use the ADC/touchscreen, even though the IP in itself might very well work, which doesn't sound very nice, while the DT will always be there, and will always have a compatible property. > >Ok, that make sense. I will use compatible names for the capabilities in > >next version. Thanks. > > Hold on a little bit Josh, I know that Jean-Christophe is not in > favor of the use of multiple compatible strings. So, as the code is > already there, let's wait and see if we find another argument... And you know my feeling about this for quite some time already ;) Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: