Jason, On 10/01/2014 21:08, Jason Cooper wrote: > 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? Here it's clearly the default Gregory -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- 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
