Hi Simon,
On Tuesday 15 October 2013 09:23:19 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:22:23AM +0400, Valentine wrote:
> > On 10/14/2013 10:15 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >On Monday 14 October 2013 21:58:50 Valentine wrote:
> > >>On 10/14/2013 08:26 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >>>On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:42:34PM +0100, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> > >>>>R-Car Gen2 SoCs have a different PHY which is not compatible
> > >>>>with the older R-Car H1 (R8A7779) version.
> > >>>>This adds OF/platform device id tables and PHY initialization
> > >>>>
> > >>>>callbacks for the following Gen2 SoCs:
> > >>>> * R-Car H2: R8A7790;
> > >>>> * R-Car M2: R8A7791.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>PHY initialization method is chosen, based on the device id.
> > >>>>Default PHY settings are applied for Gen2 SoCs, which should
> > >>>>suit the Gen2 boards available.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The R8A7779 platform code is modified to use "sata-r8a7779"
> > >>>>device id.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak
> > >>>><[email protected]>
> > >>>>---
> > >>>>
> > >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/ata/sata_rcar.txt | 5 +-
> > >>>> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c | 2 +-
> > >>>> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-r8a7779.c | 2 +-
> > >>>> drivers/ata/sata_rcar.c | 112
> > >>>> +++++++++++---
> > >>>> 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/sata_rcar.txt
> > >>>>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/sata_rcar.txt index
> > >>>>2465183..b5a41bf 100644
> > >>>>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/sata_rcar.txt
> > >>>>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/sata_rcar.txt
[snip]
> > >>>>+static struct of_device_id sata_rcar_match[] = {
> > >>>>+ {
> > >>>>+ .compatible = "renesas,sata-r8a7779",
> > >>>>+ .data = (void *)RCAR_GEN1_SATA,
> > >>>>+ },
> > >>>>+ {
> > >>>>+ .compatible = "renesas,sata-r8a7790",
> > >>>>+ .data = (void *)RCAR_GEN2_SATA
> > >>>>+ },
> > >>>>+ {
> > >>>>+ .compatible = "renesas,sata-r8a7791",
> > >>>>+ .data = (void *)RCAR_GEN2_SATA
> > >>>>+ },
> > >>>>+ {},
> > >>>>+};
> > >>>>+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sata_rcar_match);
> > >>>
> > >>>Are the renesas,sata-r8a779x variants identical?
> > >>
> > >>Yes.
> > >>
> > >>>If so, why the two strings?
> > >>
> > >>Just thought the driver should support "renesas,sata-r8a7791"
> > >>compatibility as well since it should support both SoCs.
> > >>Didn't want to force sata-r8a7790 compatibility for the r8a7791 SoC DTS.
> > >
> > >One reason for two compatibility strings is not to be stuck if we later
> > >find out the the 7791 SATA controller differs from the 7790.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Yeah, anyways, I'd prefer to keep both strings in the device id table.
>
> Yes, I do too, mostly for the reason that Laurent gave.
> But also because this is consistent with compatibility strings
> for other Renesas IP.
We need to use the 7791 compatibility string in DT, but if we specify both,
the driver could have a single entry for both SoCs in its device ID table. As
stated before, I have no strong preference, both would work.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
