On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 07:55:57AM +0800, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Jason Cooper, > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:44:12 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > Lior, thanks for the clarification. Simon, care to respin this with a > > check for "marvell,armada-370-xp" root compatible string? It should be > > safe to say that if there is no DT, don't write the register. > > Why check a root compatible string? If we do this, then we will have to > change the SATA driver for each and every new Marvell SoC that has this > PHY speed control register (and these new SOCs will not use the > "marvell,armada-370-xp" root compatible string, since they are clearly > not Armada 370/XP). > > Instead, we should introduce an additional compatible string for the > SATA driver itself. Agreed. > > Alternatively, we could do as Lior suggests, and create a new sata > > compatible string. But I think that is overkill. > > No, this is the right thing to do, IMO. > > > Also, I'm growing more leery creating compatible strings for IP blocks > > which are tied to the SoC revision. If the IP block doesn't get issued > > it's own version number/codename, we should just use the root compatible > > strings to determine which SoC we are on. I'll expand on this though as > > I get caught up with Gregory's series's. > > I really disagree. It means that whenever a new root compatible string > is created for a new SOC, we will have to edit gazillions of drivers. > It's not because two SOCs have the same SATA IP that they are globally > compatible, and can therefore share the same root compatible strings. Yes, you're right. I really went off the deep end on that one. Simon, please do as Lior and Thomas suggested. thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
