[PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node

[Boris Brezillon]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800
Guochun Mao <guochun.mao at mediatek.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon  
> > > One last question and I'm done: is something like that acceptable?
> > >
> > >         compatible = "<vendor>,<old-soc>","<vendor>,<new-soc>";
> > >
> > > This can happen when someone adds support for an unsupported feature
> > > on a brand new SoC, and then someone else use the same driver for an
> > > older SoC embedding the same IP but still wants to add a new compatible
> > > just in case these 2 IPs appear to be slightly different.  
> > 
> > Yes, it's old and new compatible strings in this case and it's newest
> > compatible string first.
> >   
> > > Here the order of compat strings is no longer following a clear rule
> > > like 'most-specific compatible first' or 'newest IP/SoC version first',
> > > it's completely dependent on the order these IPs were supported in the
> > > OS (Linux). I'm perfectly fine with that BTW, just want to make sure
> > > this is authorized.  
> > 
> > I guess we should say "newest compatible for IP first" instead. There
> > are some exceptions where we add fallbacks later on, but that falls
> > under the most-specific part.
> > 
> > It's order that the bindings are defined, not Linux support really,
> > but in practice those are the same.
> > 
> > Rob  
> 
> Thanks for all your effort for code reviewing.
> Our mt2701-nor's hardware is designed base on mt8713-nor,
> even so, there would be some slight difference.
> If I don't misunderstand your viewpoint in this discussion,
> there's no need to drop mt2701-nor compatible.

No, just update the documentation as suggested by Rob.

> And if not, is there any other suggestion?

Nope, and my apologies for being so insistent on something I obviously
misunderstood.

Regards,

Boris