From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:12:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: shmobile: r8a7791: add i2c master nodes to dtsi In-Reply-To: References: <1392543658-5030-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <1392543658-5030-3-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <20140217075410.GA2633@katana> Message-ID: <20140217091237.GC2633@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > Why is that? From my knowledge, you start with the exact compatible > > property and hardware compatible entries may follow. > > I think this boils down to if they really are compatible or not. If > for instance a 16550 port would be compatible with 8250 on a hardware > level then using them in the order of "16550", "8250" makes sense. In > this case the r8a7791 i2c is not really strictly based on r8a7790 i2c, > it is just that r8a7790 has support in the driver. So it's a short cut > instead of actual hardware compatibility. I don't get this point. The legacy board code for koelsch and lager both create a platform_device with "i2c-rcar_gen2", so the cores surely must be compatible? Maybe the cores are not strictly based on each other, but compatible, yes, I'd say. > So far we've dealt with this by updating the driver and only relying > on the actual SoC name as suffix. OK, for consistency reasons I will resend. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: