From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c-mv64xxx: Add I2C Transaction Generator support Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:09:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20130808170901.GG27325@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1373898278-4805-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <1373898278-4805-2-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20130716080503.GA3125@lukather> <5200E684.5080003@free-electrons.com> <20130807143546.GD2978@katana> <20130807155700.GE19280@titan.lakedaemon.net> <5203B97A.8060605@free-electrons.com> <20130808164323.GD27325@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130808170238.GK8204@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130808170238.GK8204@titan.lakedaemon.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jason Cooper Cc: Lior Amsalem , Andrew Lunn , Ike Pan , Wolfram Sang , Nadav Haklai , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , David Marlin , Yehuda Yitschak , Tawfik Bayouk , "dann.frazier@canonical.com" , Eran Ben-Avi , Ezequiel Garcia , Leif Lindholm , Sebastian Hesselbarth , "jcm@redhat.com" , Gregory CLEMENT , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Thomas Petazzoni , "vanhoof@canonical.com" , Piotr Ziecik List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 06:02:38PM +0100, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:43:23PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:30:02PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > On 07/08/2013 17:57, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:35:46PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> But we shouldn't use it alone: we should always use: > > > >>> compatible = "marvell,mv78230-i2c", "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c"; > > > >>> > > > >>> From my point of view using "marvell,mv78230-i2c" alone is an error. > > > >>> > > > >>> Wolfram what is your opinion on it? > > > >> > > > >> It is not strictly an error, but risky. If you use an older Kernel > > > >> version (or other OS) which only offers "mv64xxx" you will have no > > > >> match. Although the driver theoretically could have basic support for > > > >> all mv64xxx variants skipping all additional features of later IP > > > >> revisions. > > > > > > > > I agree here. The driver is advertising what IP blocks it can handle, > > > > so it makes sense to add both strings since it can handle both. > > > > > > Wolfram, > > > so beside remarks about the compatibility strings. I didn't any other > > > comment since the v3 which was 7 weeks ago. > > > > > > Does it mean that once I will have added the handle of this string, > > > you will be able to take the series for the 3.12 kernel? > > > > Please could you also ensure the new string is documented in > > Documentation/devicetree, with a brief description of what it implies > > about the hardware beyond the exiting "marvell,mv64xxx-i2c" string. > > That was in patch 3/3: > > ARM: dts: mvebu: Introduce a new compatible string for mv64xxx-i2c > > Which I've applied here: > > http://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git/commitdiff/e7c4a1e9f937453a32a5119868cac49de098640a > > And my reasoning for taking it: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=137555145730141&w=2 My bad, I missed that. > > I haven't sent a PR to arm-soc yet (I like to let things gel in -next > for a few days), so if there's something wrong with it, please let me > know. It looks fine to me. :) Thanks, Mark.