On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 03:50:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:43 PM Wolfram Sang > <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Don't we want to introduce a family-specific compatible value for > > > R-Car Gen4? At least the SCSS seems to be a new R-Car Gen4 feature > > > common to R-Car S4 and R-Car V3U (yes, the latter is advertised as > > > the first member of the R-Car Gen4 family, so I intend to move it > > > over to renesas,rcar-gen4-* where it makes sense). > > > > Yeah, sure we want the family compatible. But for now it can point to > > I2C_RCAR_GEN3, so the patch can stay as is. That is what I was wondering > > about why a v2 was needed. If we add SCSS, we can update the family > > compatible data for Gen4 to I2C_RCAR_GEN4. Unless I miss something. > > Ah, there's the source of the confusion! ;-) > > There's a need for a v2 because the patch description says R-Car S4 > supports FM+, which is false. Now we got it! :) Well, I can simply remove FM+ from the message when applying? Anyway, with the above fixed: Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
