From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: sh_eth: implement R-Car Gen[12] fallback compatibility strings Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:20:47 +0300 Message-ID: <2874aea5-c012-82cd-2fc6-74ee63ac3d11@cogentembedded.com> References: <20171017074747.24159-1-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20171017074747.24159-4-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Magnus Damm , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Horman , David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171017074747.24159-4-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 10/17/2017 10:47 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > Implement fallback compatibility strings for R-Car Gen 1 and 2. > > In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of > SoCs, f.e. Gen 1 and 2. But beyond that its not clear what the relationship > between IP blocks might be. For example, I believe that r8a7790 is older > than r8a7791 but that doesn't imply that the latter is a descendant of the > former or vice versa. > > We can, however, by examining the documentation and behaviour of the > hardware at run-time observe that the current driver implementation appears > to be compatible with the IP blocks on SoCs within a given generation. > > For the above reasons and convenience when enabling new SoCs a > per-generation fallback compatibility string scheme being adopted for > drivers for Renesas SoCs. > > Note that R-Car Gen2 and RZ/G1 have many compatible IP blocks. The > approach that has been consistently taken for other IP blocks is to name > common code, compatibility strings and so on after Rcar Gen2. R-Car again. :-) > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman Acked-by: Sergei Shtylyov MBR, Sergei