[PATCH 1/5] ARM: at91: at91sam9x5 RTC is not compatible with at91rm9200 one

[nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)]

On 04/19/2013 04:49 PM, Sergei Shtylyov :
> On 19-04-2013 18:05, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> 
>>>> Due to a bug with RTC IMR, we cannot consider at91sam9x5 RTC compatible
>>>> with the previous one. Modify DT compatibility string, even if the
>>>> driver
>>>> is not yet modified to take it into account.
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi
>>>> index a3d4464..58747f3 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi
>>>> @@ -564,7 +564,7 @@
>>>>                };
>>>>
>>>>                rtc at fffffeb0 {
>>>> -                compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-rtc";
>>>> +                compatible = "atmel,at91sam9x5-rtc";
> 
>>>     Do not use wildcards in the "compatible" prop values (I guess 'x' is
>>> a wildcard).
> 
>> Well, it is for naming a series of hardware, not for giving a generic
>> name that could cover different hardware.
> 
>> In the sense of Atmel it is our way to call the at91sam9x5 series of
>> SoC: you will see that the code that covers these SoCs is always named
>> like this.
>> In fact, the hardware contained in these SoC cannot be different from
>> one flavor of the family to the other.
> 
>    Nevertheless, the wildcards shouldn't be used. Use the name of e.g.
> the first member of the family.

There is not "first" there is no "last" they are all the same from a
hardware perspective. The only difference is activation of peripherals.

So, no, we will not change this.

Cf:
find arch/arm/boot/dts/ | xargs grep compatible | grep at91sam9x5

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre