On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: [...] >>> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in >>> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible >>> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) >>> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform >>> specific compatible for deviations only. >>> >>> Is that not acceptable ? >> >> >> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less >> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value. >> > > There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the > standard command set will be shared. > >> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't >> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead >> we should have those as extensions on the side. >> > > Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the > deviations but generic one to handle the shared set. > >> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same >> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc. >> > > True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ? That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how many releases did ARM make before 1.0. 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
