Hi Wolfram,
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM Wolfram Sang
> <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com> wrote:
> > > > However, both versions (with and without automatic transmission) are
> > > > described with the same "renesas,iic-r8a7742" compatible. Is it possible
> > > > to detect the reduced variant at runtime somehow?
> > > >
> > > I couldn't find anything the manual that would be useful to detect at
> > > runtime.
>
> Hence if we really need that (see below), we need a quirk based on compatible
> value + base address.
>
> > > > My concern is that the peculiarity of this SoC might be forgotten if we
> > > > describe it like this and ever add "automatic transmissions" somewhen.
> > > >
> > > Agreed.
> >
> > Well, I guess reading from a register which is supposed to not be there
> > on the modified IP core is too hackish.
>
> According to the Hardware User's Manual Rev. 1.00, the registers do exist
> on all RZ/G1, except for RZ/G1E (see below).
>
> "(automatic transmission can be used as a hardware function, but this is
> not meaningful for actual use cases)."
>
> (whatever that comment may mean?)
>
> > Leaves us with a seperate compatible entry for it?
>
> On R-Car E3 and RZ/G2E, which have a single IIC instance, we
> handled that by:
>
> The r8a77990 (R-Car E3) and r8a774c0 (RZ/G2E)
> controllers are not considered compatible with
> "renesas,rcar-gen3-iic" or "renesas,rmobile-iic"
> due to the absence of automatic transmission registers.
>
> On R-Car E2 and RZ/G1E, we forgot, and used both SoC-specific and
> family-specific compatible values.
>
What are your thoughts on the above.
Cheers,
--Prabhakar
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> ge...@linux-m68k.org
>
> 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
