RE: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device

[Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> 
> On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >>>> These two changes look good to me.  For both of them:
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson<dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
> >>>
> >>> Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be
used.
> >> But
> >>> you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another
> confusion
> >>> on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
> >>> common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver
> like
> >>> following?
> >>>
> >>> -     { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
> >>> +     { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" },
> >>>
> >>> Or if any version or something, how about following?
> >>>
> >>> +     { .compatible = "samsung,dwc-v3" },
> >>>
> > Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some
> > confusion, but won't it be fine that -
> > "Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by
> > including the older string in the compatible list" - as quoted by Grant
Likely
> >
> > Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for
> > SoC specific
> > in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same
> > compatible for newer SoCs also. Like,
> >
> > -     { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
> > +     { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwc3" },
> > +     { .compatible =<new SoC using same IP>  },
> 
> Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I
believe
> IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
> instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
> be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each
instance.
> I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
> to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
> seems more clear to me.
> 
Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is
"arm,pl330" and "arm,primecell" not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same
case or at least similar.

You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of
version and it can be used for identify.

Thanks.

- Kukjin