On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:12:41PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > 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 So we should default to no offloading when we see it? Since it has been deployed referring to -a0 revision i2c IP blocks? 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
