On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:13:55 +0100
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/13/2017 04:12 PM, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/01/17 15:17, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:13:29 +0800
> >> Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Add Mediatek nor flash node.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >>> index 082ca88..85e5ae8 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >>> @@ -24,6 +24,31 @@
> >>> };
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +&nor_flash {
> >>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&nor_pins_default>;
> >>> + status = "okay";
> >>> + flash@0 {
> >>> + compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
> >>> + reg = <0>;
> >>> + };
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +&pio {
> >>> + nor_pins_default: nor {
> >>> + pins1 {
> >>> + pinmux = <MT2701_PIN_240_EXT_XCS__FUNC_EXT_XCS>,
> >>> + <MT2701_PIN_241_EXT_SCK__FUNC_EXT_SCK>,
> >>> + <MT2701_PIN_239_EXT_SDIO0__FUNC_EXT_SDIO0>,
> >>> + <MT2701_PIN_238_EXT_SDIO1__FUNC_EXT_SDIO1>,
> >>> + <MT2701_PIN_237_EXT_SDIO2__FUNC_EXT_SDIO2>,
> >>> + <MT2701_PIN_236_EXT_SDIO3__FUNC_EXT_SDIO3>;
> >>> + drive-strength = <MTK_DRIVE_4mA>;
> >>> + bias-pull-up;
> >>> + };
> >>> + };
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> &uart0 {
> >>> status = "okay";
> >>> };
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >>> index bdf8954..1eefce4 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >>> @@ -227,6 +227,18 @@
> >>> status = "disabled";
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> + nor_flash: spi@11014000 {
> >>> + compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor",
> >>> + "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
> >>
> >> Why define both here? Is "mediatek,mt8173-nor" really providing a
> >> subset of the features supported by "mediatek,mt2701-nor"?
> >>
> >
> > I think even if the ip block is the same, we should provide both
> > bindings, just in case in the future we find out that mt2701 has some
> > hidden bug, feature or bug-feature. This way even if we update the
> > driver, we stay compatible with older device tree blobs in the wild.
> >
> > We can drop the mt2701-nor in the bindings definition if you want.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. What I meant is that if you want to
list/support all possible compatibles, maybe you should just put one
compatible in your DT and patch your driver (+ binding doc) to define
all of them.
>
> This exactly. We should have a DT compat in the form:
> compatible = "vendor,<soc>-block", "vendor,<oldest-compat-soc>-block";
> Then if we find a problem in the future, we can match on the
> "vendor,<soc>-block" and still support the old DTs.
Not sure it's only in term of whose IP appeared first. My understanding
is that it's a way to provide inheritance. For example:
"<soc-vendor>,<ip-version>", "<ip-vendor>,<ip-version>";
or
"<soc-vendor>,<full-featured-ip-version>","<soc-vendor>,<basic-feature-ip-version>";
BTW, which one is the oldest between mt8173 and mt2701? :-)
--
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
