Re: [PATCH v4 i2c/for-next] i2c: rcar: Add per-Generation fallback bindings

2016-12-11 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:01:28PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of > SoCs, e.g. Gen 2 and Gen 3. But beyond that it's not clear what the > relationship between IP blocks might be. For example, I believe that > r8a7790 is

[PATCH v4 i2c/for-next] i2c: rcar: Add per-Generation fallback bindings

2016-12-06 Thread Simon Horman
In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of SoCs, e.g. Gen 2 and Gen 3. But beyond that it's 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

Re: [PATCH v4 i2c/for-next] i2c: rcar: Add per-Generation fallback bindings

2016-12-02 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of > SoCs, e.g. Gen 2 and Gen 3. But beyond that it's not clear what the > relationship between IP blocks might be. For example, I believe

[PATCH v4 i2c/for-next] i2c: rcar: Add per-Generation fallback bindings

2016-12-02 Thread Simon Horman
In the case of Renesas R-Car hardware we know that there are generations of SoCs, e.g. Gen 2 and Gen 3. But beyond that it's 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