From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Guinot Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: mvneta: introduce compatible string "marvell, armada-xp-neta" Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:32:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20150619123253.GB4853@kw.sim.vm.gnt> References: <1434547162-6275-1-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <1434547162-6275-2-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <55818E64.20007@free-electrons.com> <55818F10.8030304@free-electrons.com> <20150617170112.GD2917@io.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HYC+c85AsWjroYih" Cc: Gregory CLEMENT , Thomas Petazzoni , Andrew Lunn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Donnefort , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth To: Jason Cooper Return-path: Received: from vm1.sequanux.org ([188.165.36.56]:46557 "EHLO vm1.sequanux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbbFSMc6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:32:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150617170112.GD2917@io.lakedaemon.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --HYC+c85AsWjroYih Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:01:12PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Gregory, >=20 > 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 availa= ble > > >> for the Armada XP SoCs then a way to identify them is needed. > > >> > > >> This patch introduces a new compatible string "marvell,armada-xp-net= a". > > >=20 > > > Let's be future proof by going further. I would like to have an compa= tible string > > > for each SoC even if we currently we don't use them. >=20 > I disagree with this. We can't predict what incosistencies we'll discove= r 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) >=20 > 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 --HYC+c85AsWjroYih Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWEC/UACgkQgtp0PDeOcDrQlwCfdsYQWiiyYkklsn5EbYAm/7ds DcEAn3xzH2P7zKkUChH+4vJ8uX2r7Lcc =HhAi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HYC+c85AsWjroYih-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: simon.guinot@sequanux.org (Simon Guinot) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:32:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] net: mvneta: introduce compatible string "marvell, armada-xp-neta" In-Reply-To: <20150617170112.GD2917@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <1434547162-6275-1-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <1434547162-6275-2-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <55818E64.20007@free-electrons.com> <55818F10.8030304@free-electrons.com> <20150617170112.GD2917@io.lakedaemon.net> Message-ID: <20150619123253.GB4853@kw.sim.vm.gnt> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: