On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 07:59:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Simon Horman > <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add fallback compatibility string for R-Car Gen 1, 2 and 3. > > > > In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of > > SoCs, f.e. Gen 1 and 2. But beyond that its not clear what the relationship > > between IP blocks might be. For example, I believe that r8a7790 is older > > than r8a7791 but that doesn't imply that the latter is a descendant of the > > former or vice versa. > > > > We can, however, by examining the documentation and behaviour of the > > hardware at run-time observe that the current driver implementation appears > > to be compatible with the IP blocks on SoCs within a given generation. > > > > For the above reasons and convenience when enabling new SoCs a > > per-generation fallback compatibility string scheme being adopted for > > drivers for Renesas SoCs. > > > > Also deprecate renesas,gpio-rcar as its name is more generic than its > > implementation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > Based on linux-gpio/for-next > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/renesas,gpio-rcar.txt | 15 +++++++++++---- > > drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/renesas,gpio-rcar.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/renesas,gpio-rcar.txt > > index 6826a371fb69..48634b01f1bf 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/renesas,gpio-rcar.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/renesas,gpio-rcar.txt > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ > > > > Required Properties: > > > > - - compatible: should contain one of the following. > > + - compatible: should contain one or more of the following: > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7743": for R8A7743 (RZ/G1M) compatible GPIO controller. > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7778": for R8A7778 (R-Mobile M1) compatible GPIO controller. > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7779": for R8A7779 (R-Car H1) compatible GPIO controller. > > @@ -13,7 +13,14 @@ Required Properties: > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7794": for R8A7794 (R-Car E2) compatible GPIO controller. > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7795": for R8A7795 (R-Car H3) compatible GPIO controller. > > - "renesas,gpio-r8a7796": for R8A7796 (R-Car M3-W) compatible GPIO controller. > > - - "renesas,gpio-rcar": for generic R-Car GPIO controller. > > + - "renesas,rcar-gen1-gpio": for a generic R-Car Gen1 GPIO controller. > > + - "renesas,rcar-gen2-gpio": for a generic R-Car Gen2 or RZ/G1 GPIO controller. > > + - "renesas,rcar-gen3-gpio": for a generic R-Car Gen3 GPIO controller. > > + - "renesas,gpio-rcar": deprecated. > > + > > + When compatible with the generic version nodes must list the > > + SoC-specific version corresponding to the platform first followed by > > + the generic version. > > Besides for consistency, does it make sense to deprecate "renesas,gpio-rcar" > (which means R-Car Gen1) and introduce "renesas,rcar-gen1-gpio"? > It's not like new R-Car Gen1 SoCs will pop up anytime soon (do we want Linux > support for R-Car E1?). >From my PoV the only advantage of that portion of the change is improving consistency. Perhaps it would be better to substitute it with something like this: - "renesas,gpio-rcar": for a generic R-Car Gen1 GPIO controller.
