On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:45:50PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:05:21PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:22:40PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > Do we create new compatible strings to indicate errata, or to indicate > > > 'from this version forward there are new features'? The former would > > > indicate as Gregory has written '...-a0-i2c', the latter would warrant > > > '...-b0-i2c' and disabling offloading if we don't see '...-b0-i2c'. > > s/-b0-i2c'./-b0-i2c' or newer./ > > > IMHO the compatible string should represent a specific HW/SW ABI. So > > you need a unique compatible string for every variation of that ABI. > > My concern is that we tend to do things like "marvell,orion-sata" for > the first version of the IP block we can work with. orion5x, kirkwood, > dove, and armada 370/xp all use that compatible string to refer to that > IP block. > > Given that we look at it as 'and newer', '...-a0-i2c' would mean no > offloading until we introduce '-b0-i2c'. Or am I mis-understanding what > you're saying? > > > We already have a compatible string defined for the ABI that B0 > > presents. > > So 'mv78230-i2c' is newer than 'mv78230-a0-i2c', or are you referring to > something else? I think the crux of it is: Is mv78230-i2c the first, or the default? thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
