On 29 May 2023 03:59:57 IST, Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 6:22 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:59:48PM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote: >> > > 2023年5月27日 17:23，Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道： >> > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 05:13:39PM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote: >> >> > >> My recommendation is leaving compatible string as is. >> > > >> > > "as is" meaning "as it is right now in Linus' tree", or "as it is in >> > > this patch"? >> > >> > Ah sorry I meant in this patch. >> > >> > Since there won’t be any new ls1x chip that will boot Linux any time soon (due to >> > Loongson move away from MIPS but LoongArch32 is undefined for now), and >> > rest compatible strings are wide enough to cover their family, I think the present >> > compatible strings in this patch describes hardware best. >> >> I don't see why new bindings being written for old hardware should somehow >> be treated differently than new bindings for new hardware. > >Let me add that ls1b RTC and ls1c RTC are not exactly the same. >The former supports RTC interrupt, while the latter does not. >So my suggestion is to leave the compatible string as it is in this patch. Just as a reminder, there are more than ls1b & c in the patch, lest we forget. Also, fallback compatibles mean a compatible subset, not only that two devices are identical. The interrupt is passed by the interrupts property.
