Subject: [PATCH] sh_eth: add R8A7791 support

From: [email-masked] (Sergei Shtylyov)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 01:08:21 +0300

Hello.

On 11/18/2013 10:54 AM, Simon Horman wrote:

    Too bad you haven't spoken out before I went and done this patch and its 
follow-ups, at the point where I only laid out my plan of action in a reply to 
Magnus...

>> Add support for yet another ARM member of the R-Car family, R-Car M2, also known
>> as R8A7791 -- it will share the code and data with previously added R8A7790.
>> Since  the Ether devices in these SoCs are indistinguishable at least from the
>> driver's point of view,  do not introduce  a new platform device ID but modify
>> device name "r8a7790-ether" to "r8a779x-ether" throughout the files (and also
>> 'r8a7790_data' to 'r8a779x_data' in the driver), just like the names used for
>> R8A7778/9 SoCs.

> I realise that this is the approach that has been taken previously by this
> driver for some other SoCs but it is inconsistent with the approach that
> has (recently) emerged for drivers for Renesas IP.

> The problem with this approach is that although the hardware may appear to
> be the same in the absence of some kind of version number for the IP we
> can't be certain it is the same.  Some difference may come to light later
> and then this system breaks down.

    I don't think that'll be the case here, but do I understand your concern 
about things breaking down.

> Sure, at that point we can create a more fine-grained compatibility string.

    Slight correction of terms: we're dealing with platform device ID here, 
not (device tree) compatibility string.

> But the approach that has emerged is that in the absence of a clearly
> documented version number for the hardware the SoC name is used as the
> version number.

    I just deviated a little from this scheme by using a wildcard.

> I am also not entirely happy with the approach taken by this patch for
> two other reasons:

> 1) It removes rather than deprecating an existing compatibility string.
>     Albeit one that may not actually be used in the wild.

    We don't care about out of tree code, do we? At least I don't see how we 
do that with our current platform device registration policy (mostly per board).

> 2) It changes both drivers/net/ and arch/arm/mach-shmobile/ code.
>     This kind of cross-subsystem change can lead to conflicts which
>     make Linus grumpy: this has occurred recently with shmobile code
>     though not in this driver.

    OK, let's do it your way, with adding another platform device ID, and so 
doing only drivers/net/ change.

> That said, I did successfully test this patch in conjunction with
> companion patches for the r8A7791 SoC and Koelsch board.

    I try not to post untested patches (except when I trust other people to do 
the testing of their patches. :-)

>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <[email-masked]>

WBR, Sergei