Hi Simon, On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > --- > 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?). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
