Hello, On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the > > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit > > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing > > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 > > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. > > But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the > string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if > the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 > without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 will also apply to 398. Now, whether it is a good idea to consider them "compatible" in the DT sense, I'm not sure. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
