Hi Laurent, On 13/09/2019 10:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:21:29AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:00:41PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>> On 11.09.2019 22:25, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> >>>> Add direct support for the r8a77980 (V3H). >>>> >>>> The V3H shares a common, compatible configuration with the r8a77970 >>>> (V3M) so that device info structure is reused. >>> >>> Do we really need to add yet another compatible in this case? >>> I just added r8a77970 to the compatible prop in the r8a77980 DT. That's why >>> a patch like this one didn't get posted by me. >> >> The reason for having per-SoC compat strings is that the IP blocks >> are not versioned and while we can observe that there are similarities >> between, f.e. the DU on the r8a77970 and r8a77980, we can't be certain that >> differences may not emerge at some point. By having per-SoC compat strings >> we have the flexibility for the driver to address any such differences as >> the need arises. >> >> My recollection is that this scheme has been adopted for non-versioned >> Renesas IP blocks since June 2015 and uses of this scheme well before that. > > Sure, but we could use > > compatible = "renesas,du-r8a77980", "renesas,du-r8a77970"; > > in DT without updating the driver. If the r8a77980 turns out to be > different, we'll then update the driver without a need to modify DT. I'm > fine either way, so > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, This patch has an RB tag from you, and Simon, but alas I don't believe it has been picked up in your drm/du/next branch. Is this patch acceptable? Or do I need to repost? -- Kieran > >>>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
