On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:29:18PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > The only outstanding point (Arnd?), is that I think it's ok to have the > > i2c...a0 compatible string in the dts files, but Andrew seems to think > > otherwise. Is that still true Andrew? > > Hi Jason > > I can live with i2c...a0 compatible string, but it has minor problems: > > 1) The binding Documentation says not to do it. So we are ignoring our > own documentation. This can be updated. > 2) It seems likely that at some point the OEM will swap to B1 revision > SoCs. The i2c device then does not require this quirk, but we have > hard coded in the DT file that it is required. B1 revision would > work, but not optimally. The quirk can go both ways. eg, we can detect that we *aren't* on an A0 and need to remove the compatible string. > So i would prefer not to explicitly enable the quirk, but determine at > run time if the quirk is needed for the SoC revision it is running on. I agree, but that is Linux-centric. We need to handle it coherently in the binding docs for *BSD, bootloaders, etc. I suggest we update the binding to allow using the compatible string, and advise that to avoid end-user frustration, implementations should detect the SoC revision at runtime and either add or remove the compatible string. thx, Jason. -- 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
