On 01/13/2017 05:28 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> 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.
Uh, what ? I lost you here :-)
>> 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? :-)
And that's another thing and I agree with you, but I don't think that's
what we're discussing in this thread. But (!), OT, I think we should
codify the rules in Documentation/ . This discussion came up multiple
times recently.
And my question still stands, what do we put into the DT here, IMO
compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor", "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
and what goes into the binding document ? I guess both too ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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
