From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/6] dt-bindings: mailbox: imx-mu: add i.MX6SX and i.MX7S SoCs. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:41:33 +0300 Message-ID: <37ce4f8b-fce7-4f7a-63ce-f2234613d4fa@mentor.com> References: <20180726065331.6186-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de> <20180726065331.6186-5-o.rempel@pengutronix.de> <1532601691.32306.28.camel@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: Jassi Brar Cc: Mark Rutland , Devicetree List , Oleksij Rempel , Rob Herring , ", linux-arm-kernel"@lists.infradead.org, dl-linux-imx , ", Sascha Hauer" , Fabio Estevam , srv_heupstream , Shawn Guo , "A.s. Dong" , srv_heupstream , Lucas Stach List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org On 07/26/2018 03:10 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy > wrote: >> On 07/26/2018 02:52 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy >>> wrote: > >>>> >>> Please note the submitted driver absolutely don't care which of the >>> five SoCs it is. >> >> True. >> > >>> In other words, all these SoCs have the same controller. >> >> False :) >> To be more precice, the statement itself may be true or false, but the implication ("In other words, ...") is definitely false. > OK, so the controllers are not identical, but same enough to have a > common driver? Right, the controllers are compatible, but likely they are non-identical. > Is the driver not tested enough or are you planning to add more features? > Test results can not serve as a formal eternal proof, but they are good as a hint. Also I'm not aware of any pending features to be added to the driver. >>> So its about have just one compatible right now, and add more if some >>> new SoC comes with a variation of the controller. >>> >> >> True. The driver will be changed in this case, unfortunately the bindings >> are not so volatile. >> > The volatility of the bindings will be same when you add a new SoC > compatible ;) And you must add to bindings+driver, or the same h/w > and same driver won't work for your new platform. > The (non-)volatilitily of the bindings is important only in retrospective view. Adding a new compatible to the documentation and unrelated board DTBs is irrelevant, and it is quite predictable that it will happen, when a new SoC with the same "compatible" IP is released. -- Best wishes, Vladimir