On 26/01/2023 10:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> I did not get whether this is runtime characteristics or it can be >>> customized with compatible (just you did not do it)? >> >> We have compatibles per SoC, i.e. "r8a7795". We don't have compatibles >> for ES versions, i.e. no "r8a7795-es10" or "r8a7795-es20". >> >> The latter would not be practical. We can't know in advance how many ES >> revisions there will be, so we can't prepare DTs accordingly. Updating >> later would be also difficult because we are usually not notified if >> there is a new ES version. Only if there are problems with it. And which >> board is available with which ES version is chaotic^2. >> >> Also, if we update DTs later, old DTBs would not work with newer kernels >> (requiring a later added compaible for a new ES version). This all still >> ignores that it would be a churn to update for every ES version of every >> SoC. We have quite many to support. That's why we use soc_device_match() >> for ES versions in many places alreday. It was never a problem so far. >> >> That's my reasoning, probably Geert has something to add. He maintains >> the Renesas DT files. > > Exactly. We only use soc_device_match() to distinguish where we do not > have a compatible value to do so. As we have SoC-specific compatible > values for about everything, this means we usually use soc_device_match() > only to handle quirks on specific revisions of SoCs. > OK, thank you both for clarifying. Best regards, Krzysztof
