SHMobile Compatibility String Inconsistencies

[Simon Horman]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:11:11 David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:46:40PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Hi Laurent, Hi Guennadi, Hi All,
> > > 
> > > Olof has brought to my attention that there is some inconsistency
> > > in the way that compatibility strings for SHMobile are named and he
> > > has asked us to clean things up for v3.12.
> > > 
> > > Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts/ I see that we have:
> > > 
> > > 1. {gpio,pfc}-r8aXXXX and;
> > > 2. r8aXXXX-sdhi
> > > 
> > > The inconsistency that Olof has asked us to resolve is that we
> > > should either use r8aXXXX- or -r8aXXXX. Not both.
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that neither option is inherently better than the other
> > > so we should just choose the path of least resistance to make things
> > > consistent.
> > > 
> > > Laurent, Guennadi, do you have any opinions on if it would
> > > be easier to change the GPIO and PFC compatibility strings;
> > > or to change the SDHI compatibility strings?
> > > 
> > > Ideally I would like you to come to some sort of consensus and send
> > > patches.
> > 
> > So, by all means clean this up in the dts.
> > 
> > BUT, in keeping with the recent discussions on improving the DT
> > process, the corresponding drivers must continue to recognize both
> > forms, so that old DTs will still work correctly.
> 
> Given the early state of DT support in arm/mach-shmobile, I'm pretty sure we 
> have no DT-based systems in the wild. The old compatibility string could in my 
> opinion just be dropped.

I tend to agree, though I don't mind either way.

> > It's probably also worth putting a note about the deprecated form into
> > the binding description, too.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart