> > Why is that? From my knowledge, you start with the exact compatible > > property and hardware compatible entries may follow. > > I think this boils down to if they really are compatible or not. If > for instance a 16550 port would be compatible with 8250 on a hardware > level then using them in the order of "16550", "8250" makes sense. In > this case the r8a7791 i2c is not really strictly based on r8a7790 i2c, > it is just that r8a7790 has support in the driver. So it's a short cut > instead of actual hardware compatibility. I don't get this point. The legacy board code for koelsch and lager both create a platform_device with "i2c-rcar_gen2", so the cores surely must be compatible? Maybe the cores are not strictly based on each other, but compatible, yes, I'd say. > So far we've dealt with this by updating the driver and only relying > on the actual SoC name as suffix. OK, for consistency reasons I will resend.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
