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 ?

Simon