From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:22:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy-rcar-usb-gen2: add device tree support Message-Id: <20140129122202.GB26253@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1390754945-28142-6-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> <1390755901-3743-1-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> <52E6A436.5090408@cogentembedded.com> <52E6AE32.5050906@codethink.co.uk> <20140129062212.GD23833@verge.net.au> <52E8DAF6.5090105@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <52E8DAF6.5090105@cogentembedded.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Ben Dooks , linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:41:58PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 29-01-2014 10:22, Simon Horman wrote: > > >>[snip] > > >>>>+static struct of_device_id rcar_gen2_usb_phy_ofmatch[] = { > >>>>+ { .compatible = "renesas,usb-phy-r8a7790", }, > >>>>+ { .compatible = "renesas,rcar-gen2-usb-phy", }, > > >>> Frankly speaking, I don't understand the need for the clearly > >>>duplicate entries. > > >>Thanks, will look into remove it. > >>Anyone else have any comments on this? > > >I would like you to leave it there. > > >As we know the r8a7790 is an R-Car Gen2 SoC. But there are other R-Car > >Gen2 SoCs, such as the r8a7791, they it could plausibly make use of > >rcar-gen2-usb-phy until the driver is updated with a usb-phy-r8a7791 entry. > > Why not just "update" the driver this way now, may I ask? Because I don't believe that Ben has access to r8a7791 hardware to test the change and thus it makes sense to handle it separately.