On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:40:37AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 02/22/2016 04:37 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:15:49AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > >> Add fallback compatibility string for R-Car Gen 1 and Gen2 families. > >> This is in keeping with the fallback scheme being adopted wherever > >> appropriate for drivers for Renesas SoCs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/rcar_can.txt | 4 +++- > >> drivers/net/can/rcar_can.c | 2 ++ > >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm not following the latest DT discussions, is there a (new) decision > to add such "generic" compatibles? AFAIK you add the oldest device > that's compatible with your driver to your SoC dtsi at rightmost > compatible. You can add one that identifies your SoC's IP core in front > of it. So there's no need to modify the driver until an IP core needs > different handling. > > In your case you'd identify the oldest SoC that implements the Gen1 IP > core and use this instead of "renesas,can-gen1. Same for Gen2 IP core. In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of SoCs, e.g. Gen 1 and Gen 2, but beyond that its not clear what the relationship between IP blocks might be. For example, I believe that r8a7779 is older than r8a7778 but that doesn't imply that the latter is a descendant of the former or vice versa. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
