Hi, On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon > > One last question and I'm done: is something like that acceptable? > > > > compatible = "<vendor>,<old-soc>","<vendor>,<new-soc>"; > > > > This can happen when someone adds support for an unsupported feature > > on a brand new SoC, and then someone else use the same driver for an > > older SoC embedding the same IP but still wants to add a new compatible > > just in case these 2 IPs appear to be slightly different. > > Yes, it's old and new compatible strings in this case and it's newest > compatible string first. > > > Here the order of compat strings is no longer following a clear rule > > like 'most-specific compatible first' or 'newest IP/SoC version first', > > it's completely dependent on the order these IPs were supported in the > > OS (Linux). I'm perfectly fine with that BTW, just want to make sure > > this is authorized. > > I guess we should say "newest compatible for IP first" instead. There > are some exceptions where we add fallbacks later on, but that falls > under the most-specific part. > > It's order that the bindings are defined, not Linux support really, > but in practice those are the same. > > Rob Thanks for all your effort for code reviewing. Our mt2701-nor's hardware is designed base on mt8713-nor, even so, there would be some slight difference. If I don't misunderstand your viewpoint in this discussion, there's no need to drop mt2701-nor compatible. And if not, is there any other suggestion? Thanks. -- 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
