[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: net: ravb : Add support for r8a7743 SoC

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:51:40PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:21 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> 
> >>>Add a new compatible string for the RZ/G1M (R8A7743) SoC.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das at bp.renesas.com>
> >>>---
> >>>v1->v2
> >>>* Changed the subject
> >>>* re-formatted the required properties
> >>>
> >>>.../devicetree/bindings/net/renesas,ravb.txt       | 29 +++++++++++++---------
> >>>1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/renesas,ravb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/renesas,ravb.txt
> >>>index b519503..4717bc2 100644
> >>>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/renesas,ravb.txt
> >>>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/renesas,ravb.txt
> >>>@@ -4,19 +4,24 @@ This file provides information on what the device node for the Ethernet AVB
> >>>interface contains.
> >>>
> >>>Required properties:
> >>>-- compatible: "renesas,etheravb-r8a7790" if the device is a part of R8A7790 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7791" if the device is a part of R8A7791 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7792" if the device is a part of R8A7792 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7793" if the device is a part of R8A7793 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7794" if the device is a part of R8A7794 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7795" if the device is a part of R8A7795 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-r8a7796" if the device is a part of R8A7796 SoC.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-rcar-gen2" for generic R-Car Gen 2 compatible interface.
> >>>-	      "renesas,etheravb-rcar-gen3" for generic R-Car Gen 3 compatible interface.
> >>>+- compatible: Must contain one or more of the following:
> >>
> >>   No, it can't contain more than one SoC specific value.
> >
> >The text above does not say it can unless one is under the delusion
> >that, f.e. an r8a7790 SoC is also an r8a7791 SoC.
> 
>    Hm, you're right. Sorry about my misunderstanding...
> 
>    The only problem I'm still seeing with the current wording is that gen2/3
> fallback
> values are declared optional, while you can't get the driver to bind without
> them on
> the newer SoCs. But this is probably not a new problem...
> 
> >If you would prefer an alternate wording please provide a suggestion.
> 
>    Perhaps we should emphasize that the gen2/3 fallback values are mandatory?

It's only mandatory for SoCs covered by those values - admittedly all SoCs
supported by the driver at this time. But that is an artifact of the
implementation rather than a property of the binding.

In any case I think is already described sufficiently in:

	When compatible with the generic version, nodes must list the
	SoC-specific version corresponding to the platform first followed by
	the generic version.

> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7743" for the R8A7743 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7790" for the R8A7790 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7791" for the R8A7791 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7792" for the R8A7792 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7793" for the R8A7793 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-r8a7794" for the R8A7794 SoC.
> >>>+      - "renesas,etheravb-rcar-gen2" as a fallback for the above
> >>>+		R-Car Gen2 and RZ/G1 devices.
> [...]
> 
> WBR, Sergei
>