From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20170124113118.304a860c@bbrezillon> References: <20170113172825.75d545a3@bbrezillon> <86c997be-f500-eaa1-3ba5-d21cff6223b7@gmail.com> <20170113175628.1793f433@bbrezillon> <0fafcd8d-cf99-de6b-728f-5e3637810b68@gmail.com> <20170114092958.022f2fc8@bbrezillon> <20170116094032.6f471f11@bbrezillon> <20170117143650.5db87148@free-electrons.com> <20170118222010.ivc6jxpnrumemvdf@rob-hp-laptop> <20170119103829.524ce715@free-electrons.com> <20170119091428.598eb987@bbrezillon> <1485052600.19995.10.camel@mhfsdcap03> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1485052600.19995.10.camel@mhfsdcap03> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guochun Mao Cc: Rob Herring , Thomas Petazzoni , Marek Vasut , Matthias Brugger , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Weinberger , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Cyrille Pitchen , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800 Guochun Mao wrote: > Hi, > On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon > > > One last question and I'm done: is something like that acceptable? > > > > > > compatible = ",",","; > > > > > > This can happen when someone adds support for an unsupported feature > > > on a brand new SoC, and then someone else use the same driver for an > > > older SoC embedding the same IP but still wants to add a new compatible > > > just in case these 2 IPs appear to be slightly different. > > > > Yes, it's old and new compatible strings in this case and it's newest > > compatible string first. > > > > > Here the order of compat strings is no longer following a clear rule > > > like 'most-specific compatible first' or 'newest IP/SoC version first', > > > it's completely dependent on the order these IPs were supported in the > > > OS (Linux). I'm perfectly fine with that BTW, just want to make sure > > > this is authorized. > > > > I guess we should say "newest compatible for IP first" instead. There > > are some exceptions where we add fallbacks later on, but that falls > > under the most-specific part. > > > > It's order that the bindings are defined, not Linux support really, > > but in practice those are the same. > > > > Rob > > Thanks for all your effort for code reviewing. > Our mt2701-nor's hardware is designed base on mt8713-nor, > even so, there would be some slight difference. > If I don't misunderstand your viewpoint in this discussion, > there's no need to drop mt2701-nor compatible. No, just update the documentation as suggested by Rob. > And if not, is there any other suggestion? Nope, and my apologies for being so insistent on something I obviously misunderstood. Regards, Boris