Hi, On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:28:27PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:49:59PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:42:26PM +0530, Mugunthan V N wrote: > > > > The new IP version has a minor changes and the offsets are same as the previous > > > > version, so instead of adding CPSW version number in the driver, make the driver > > > > to fall through to the latest versions so that the new version of CPSW which has > > > > the same register offsets will work directly without patching the driver. > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just add the new version > > > number? > > > > > > None of the hunks in your patch are on performance sensitive paths, so > > > I really can't see any point in removing the error checking. > > > > well, if a new revision of the IP comes, the driver at least has some > > chance to work without having to be modified. If it turns out that there > > are really different features, then we patch a new version, otherwise we > > should just assume highest known version and try it out. > > And if the driver reads junk from some random address due to > bootloader/DT/multikernel madness, it will happily peek and poke > around instead of rejecting the wrong version number. that'd be a bug in the DT anyway, why should the driver have to cope with broken data ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
