dt-bindings: exynos-dw-mshc-common: add exynos78xx variants
Subsystems (2)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Sergey Lisov
Quoted 1 line
Bindings and DTS (and driver) are always separate.
Okay, will split the patch.
Quoted 1 line
Compatibles must be specific.
No, this way you'd have tons of identical compatibles that only differ in the exynosXXXX digits, and are functionally equivalent.
Thanks for letting me know.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks for letting me know.
OK, at least its codified somewhere. Still, this results in the opposite
effect: DTBs written for one SoC, using compatibles from other SoCs just because "they are the same anyway". And doing this properly, well, results in essentially duplicate compatibles.
And "fallback compatibles" won't solve this case anyway, as there is no common compatible that denotes "Exynos7 DW-MMC that has the bug".
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
Probably it makes sense to put this patch after the actual implementation, so that git bisect always gives a working setup.
Quoted 1 line
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Pretty much the only thing that is broken are SDIO cards, because they run very short transfers (below the DMA threshold) over the data lines. That's exactly what I stated.
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks for letting me know.
OK, at least its codified somewhere. Still, this results in the opposite
effect: DTBs written for one SoC, using compatibles from other SoCs just because "they are the same anyway". And doing this properly, well, results in essentially duplicate compatibles.
And "fallback compatibles" won't solve this case anyway, as there is no common compatible that denotes "Exynos7 DW-MMC that has the bug".
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
Probably it makes sense to put this patch after the actual implementation, so that git bisect always gives a working setup.
Quoted 1 line
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Pretty much the only thing that is broken are SDIO cards, because they run very short transfers (below the DMA threshold) over the data lines. That's exactly what I stated.
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks for letting me know.
OK, at least its codified somewhere. Still, this results in the opposite
effect: DTBs written for one SoC, using compatibles from other SoCs just because "they are the same anyway". And doing this properly, well, results in essentially duplicate compatibles.
And "fallback compatibles" won't solve this case anyway, as there is no common compatible that denotes "Exynos7 DW-MMC that has the bug".
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
Probably it makes sense to put this patch after the actual implementation, so that git bisect always gives a working setup.
Quoted 1 line
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Pretty much the only thing that is broken are SDIO cards, because they run very short transfers (below the DMA threshold) over the data lines. That's exactly what I stated.
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks for letting me know.
OK, at least its codified somewhere. Still, this results in the opposite
effect: DTBs written for one SoC, using compatibles from other SoCs just because "they are the same anyway". And doing this properly, well, results in essentially duplicate compatibles.
And "fallback compatibles" won't solve this case anyway, as there is no common compatible that denotes "Exynos7 DW-MMC that has the bug".
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
Probably it makes sense to put this patch after the actual implementation, so that git bisect always gives a working setup.
Quoted 1 line
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Pretty much the only thing that is broken are SDIO cards, because they run very short transfers (below the DMA threshold) over the data lines. That's exactly what I stated.
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks for letting me know.
OK, at least its codified somewhere. Still, this results in the opposite
effect: DTBs written for one SoC, using compatibles from other SoCs just because "they are the same anyway". And doing this properly, well, results in essentially duplicate compatibles.
And "fallback compatibles" won't solve this case anyway, as there is no common compatible that denotes "Exynos7 DW-MMC that has the bug".
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
That's non-bisectable change (also breaking other users of DTS), so you need to explain in commit msg rationale - devices were never compatible and using exynos7 does not work in certain cases.
Probably it makes sense to put this patch after the actual implementation, so that git bisect always gives a working setup.
Quoted 1 line
BTW, this rationale was only example - you need to come with something real.
Pretty much the only thing that is broken are SDIO cards, because they run very short transfers (below the DMA threshold) over the data lines. That's exactly what I stated.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel