On 12/01/2023 20:50, William Zhang wrote: >>> No as we are adding chip model specific info here. The existing driver >>> spi-bcm63xx-hsspi.c only binds to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi. This driver >>> supports all the chips with rev1.0 controller so I am using this 6328 >>> string for other chips with v1.0 in the dts patch, which is not ideal. >> >> Why? This is perfectly ideal and usual case. Why changing it? >> >>> Now I have to add more compatible to this driver and for each new chip >>> with 1.0 in the future if any. >> >> Why you cannot use compatibility with older chipset? >> > IMHO it is really confusing that we have all the SoCs but have to bind > to an antique SoC's spi controller compatible and people may think it is > a mistake or typo when they don't know they are actually the same. I am sorry, this is ridiculous argument. It's like saying - people cannot understand what they are reading, therefore we need to present them obfuscated information so they will think something else than their minds created... > I > know there are usage like that but when we have clear knowledge of the > IP block with rev info, I think it is much better to have a precise SoC No, it's not particularly better and you were questioning it just before... > model number and a general revision info in the compatible. As you know > they are many usage of IP rev info in the compatible too. > brcm,bcm6328-hsspi will stay so it does not break any existing dts > reference to that. Anyway your ship sailed - you already have bindings using SoC versions... > > Anyway if you still does not like this idea, I will drop the rev info > and you have it your way. Best regards, Krzysztof
