On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes, I get that, but that is only meaningful if you want to run an OS that is only aware of 395 on a 398 SoC/board (though I'd guess the 390 compat is enough for that). Otherwise, that property is not really meaningful as the additional nodes are enough to handle what is the superset. I would agree both are fine if both chips are in fact the same die, just fused or packaged differently. I've seen a lot of chips that are supposed to be sub/supersets of each other, but have different errata lists because they are different die. Rob -- 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
