Hi Morimoto-san, On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 11:18:11 EEST Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > Hi Eugeniu, again > > > Yeah, it is true "so far". I think there is no problem on current kernel. > > But, unfortunately we need to keep compatibility for old/new DT > > (= actually, I don't like this DT rule. It is 100% "shackles for the > > legs") > > Thus, my big concern is that, in the future, > > "if" we added "renesas,ulcb" compatible driver/soc, > > both h3/m3 ulcb will use it. > > Then, if "h3" can work/boot by using same "m3" settings, it is no problem > > for me (= "works but limited" is also OK, of course. > > > > This means "matched to more generic compatible") > > "renesas,ulcb" is very generic naming. > Not only h3/m3, if we had v3/e3/d3 etc ulcb, Furthermore, "ulcb" is an unofficial term, the boards are named "starter kit" (SK). Using internal names in code or device tree sources is a normal practice and is fine with me, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the H3/M3 boards are called ULCB in DT, while the V3 board are called SK. I wonder if we should unify that or if it's too late. > and if we had such compatible driver/soc, it needs to match to all ulcb. > In reality, maybe we don't create such compatible driver, though. > But, I don't know, I can follow to maintainer opinion. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
