On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:53PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > > Hi Gregory, > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:15:28PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > On 17/06/2015 17:12, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > > On 17/06/2015 15:19, Simon Guinot wrote: > > > >> The mvneta driver supports the Ethernet IP found in the Armada 370, XP, > > > >> 380 and 385 SoCs. Since at least one more hardware feature is available > > > >> for the Armada XP SoCs then a way to identify them is needed. > > > >> > > > >> This patch introduces a new compatible string "marvell,armada-xp-neta". > > > > > > > > Let's be future proof by going further. I would like to have an > > > > compatible string > > > > for each SoC even if we currently we don't use them. > > > > I disagree with this. We can't predict what incosistencies we'll discover > > in > > the future. We should only assign new compatible strings based on known IP > > variations when we discover them. This seems fraught with demons since we > > can't predict the scope of affected IP blocks (some steppings of one SoC, > > three > > SoCs plus two steppings of a fourth, etc) > > > > imho, the 'future-proofing' lies in being specific as to the naming of the > > compatible strings against known hardware variations at the time. > > So, should I add more compatible strings or not ?
Hi Gregory and Jason, How do you want me to handle this ? Did you reach an agreement ? Thanks, Simon
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
