From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:52:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] mtd: atmel_nand: remove compatible "atmel,sama5d4-nfc" In-Reply-To: References: <1462776680-5284-1-git-send-email-wenyou.yang@atmel.com> <20160509201324.GA9845@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <20160510115258.GS2890@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/05/2016 at 04:50:37 +0000, Yang, Wenyou wrote : > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Herring [mailto:robh at kernel.org] > > Sent: 2016?5?10? 4:13 > > To: Yang, Wenyou > > Cc: Brian Norris ; David Woodhouse > > ; Pawel Moll ; Mark Brown > > ; Ian Campbell ; Kumar > > Gala ; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux- > > mtd at lists.infradead.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org; Ferre, Nicolas > > ; Alexandre Belloni > electrons.com>; Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard ; > > Russell King ; Josh Wu ; > > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd: atmel_nand: remove compatible "atmel,sama5d4- > > nfc" > > > > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:51:17PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote: > > > It is a datasheet bug, for current SoCs, the RB_EDGE3(i.e. bit 27) of > > > HSMC_SR register does not exist, the RB_EDGE0 (i.e. bit 24) is the > > > ready/busy line edge status bit. So the compatible "atmel,sama5d4-nfc" > > > is unneeded. > > > > The compatible is needed if the SOC still exists. You can list both for the sama5d4 > > if the block is the same. > > The NFC IP of SAMA5D4 is same as SAMA5D2's, SAMA5D4 hase this issue. This compatible can be removed. > Well, I agree with Rob, we don't remove an existing compatible. Simply make it do the right thing (i.e. the same as sama5d3-nfc). -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com