On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:21:29PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 10/01/2014 22:14, Jason Cooper wrote: > > 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? > > > > But this assumption is wrong as I already wrote few days ago, mv78230-i2c > has been deployed referring to -b0 revision i2c IP blocks since the begining. Ok, sorry. As I wrote on irc last week, I've been on travel and haven't been able to fully digest everything coming in. My re-read of all the threads regarding this this morning didn't catch it. > It was developed on and for B0 version, and this compatible was created for > this specific version. It was latter that we realized that it was not fully > compatible with A0. But for sure: > > mv78230-i2c == I2C IP running on Armada XP B0 (or latter) Ok, this still feels counter-intuitive, and folks not familiar with the development process might assume the opposite. So I'll reply to 4/4 with a reword to make your above statement an explicit part of the binding documentation. No need to do another patch version. I'll fix it up when I pull it in if you're ok with it. 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
