Hi Tony, > Am 06.09.2019 um 17:47 schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > * H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [190906 07:53]: >>> Am 05.09.2019 um 16:27 schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> compatible = "ti,omap3-ldp", "ti,omap3430", "ti,omap34xx", "ti,omap3"; >> >> After thinking a little about the whole topic the main rule of this change must be: >> >> * do not break any existing in-tree DTS >> => only *add* to compatible what we need to distinguish between omap34 and omap36 >> >> * additions shall only follow new scheme >> => we only add "ti,omap34xx" or "ti,omap36xx" >> but neither "ti,omap3630" nor "ti,omap3430" > > Sorry I don't follow you on this one.. We should always add "ti,omap3630" > where "ti,omap36xx" is currently used so we can eventually get rid of > "ti,omap36xx". And the same for 34xx. Ah, ok now I see. You want to make the "ti,omap3630" the official one and "ti,omap36xx" legacy. It is probably an arbitrary choice if we want to get rid of the xx or the 30. I had thought to do it the other way round because I had done this statistics: for i in 3430 34xx 3630 36xx; do echo $i $(fgrep '"'ti,omap$i'"' arch/arm/boot/dts/*.dts* | wc -l); done 3430 12 34xx 28 3630 3 36xx 23 which would indicate that 34xx and 36xx are more common. >> * cover some out-of-tree DTS >> => make the ti-cpufreq driver still match "ti,omap3430" or "ti,omap3630" >> even if this duplicates compatibility >> >> This would mean that the logicpd-som-lv-37xx-devkit.dts gets the additional "ti,omap36xx" >> while the omap3-ldp.dts would only get an "ti,omap34xx" but no "ti,omap3430" (since we >> do not use it anywhere). >> >> Could you agree on this approach? > > Yeah sounds like logicpd-som-lv-37xx-devkit.dts currently still needs > "ti,omap36xx" for now. > > If modifying omap3-ldp.dts, also add "ti,omap3430" in additon to > "ti,omap34xx" that it already has. > > So basically let's assume the following: > > "ti,omap3430" == "ti,omap34xx" > "ti,omap3630" == "ti,omap36xx" > > This means code needs to parse both. Yes, it already does everywhere. BTW there is also some code that does special SoC detection based on soc_device_match(), mainly in omapdrm/dss. If we were to use this mechanism in the ti-cpufreq driver we could match it to ti,omap3 and could avoid all these changes. But make it less maintainable and code more complex. > > And eventually we just drop the "xx" variants. > > So while patching compatibles, let's also update for this to > avoid multiple patches churning the same compatibles over and > over. Ok. I'll rework the patch so that we never add "ti,34xx" or "ti,36xx" but add "ti,3430" or "ti,3630" if missing. I'll also take a look at omap.txt bindings since that likely needs an update as well to better describe what the official ones are and which are legacy. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
