From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:36:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: sunxi: dt: Convert to the new i2c compatibles In-Reply-To: <20140214074407.GA2569@katana> References: <1391680285-16668-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <1391680285-16668-3-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20140213082630.GA3119@katana> <20140213225248.GB15350@lukather> <20140214074407.GA2569@katana> Message-ID: <20140214203629.GE15350@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 08:44:07AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > For non-a10, That should be at least > > > > > > compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a13-i2c", "allwinner,sun4i-a10-i2c"; > > > > > > or > > > > > > compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a13-i2c", "allwinner,sun4i-i2c"; > > > > > > depending on the outcome above. > > > > > > Or is my knowledge outdated already? > > > > > > > Since they are strictly compatible, we don't need to introduce any > > different compatible string here. > > You never know all errata in advance. From what I know, one should > always use the specfic naming first, and then the generic fallback. So, > in case a distinction is needed later (think errata), then one doesn't > need to change the devicetrees. > And adding a A13-specific compatible wouldn't change anything, because it does work on at least one revision of them, so if you'd have to deal with an errata, you'd have to introduce a new compatible for this revision only anyway. -- 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: