From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754974Ab2LSUfy (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:35:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:63034 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754648Ab2LSUfn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:35:43 -0500 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: tegra: sequence compatible strings as per preference To: Thierry Reding , Stephen Warren Cc: Mark Brown , "spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , Laxman Dewangan , Stephen Warren , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring In-Reply-To: <20121110170741.GA17689@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> References: <1352452052-13823-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <509D37B8.8020606@wwwdotorg.org> <20121109171008.GX23807@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <509D3D46.7060102@wwwdotorg.org> <20121110170741.GA17689@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:00:09 +0000 Message-Id: <20121219170009.54EE83E0C34@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:42 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > > > >> However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The > > >> DT matching order is supposed to be driven purely by the order of > > >> the compatible values in the DT now, and not affected by the > > >> order of values in the table. (This wasn't always the case, but > > >> was a bug that was fixed IIRC by Thierry Reding). > > > > > > I guess the driver is being used backported in older kernels which > > > don't have that fix? > > > > That sounds likely. Laxman, it'd be a good idea to track down the fix > > to the DT matching code and backport it, so that hard-to debug issues > > aren't caused by the lack of that patch! > > Unfortunately the patch that was supposed to fixed this caused a > regression and was therefore reverted. Rob (Cc'ed) said there was a > patch to fix it properly and was supposed to go into 3.6 but it seems > that never happened. Rob, what's the status on this? > > The revert is here: bc51b0c22cebf5c311a6f1895fcca9f78efd0478 Rob, ping on this. I think we talked about it on IRC, but I cannot remember what was said.... I must be getting old. g.