From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:16:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: at91: add Shutdown Controller (SHDWC) DT support In-Reply-To: <4F57BD04.5090002@gmail.com> References: <20120302192844.GB21255@game.jcrosoft.org> <201203071849.36867.arnd@arndb.de> <4F57BD04.5090002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201203072116.07109.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 07 March 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > I still don't understand: Doesn't the property already give the information? > > In general, you should try to encode these things in specific properties instead of > > checking the compatible property. > > > > Or vice-versa, the compatible properties distinguish things enough that > the property is not needed. If it is fixed in the SOC design, then you > should distinguish things with the compatible property. Well, one of the two, basically. I would suggest using special properties in order to be prepared when other SOCs have the same requirement. If you know for certain that each one will only ever be needed in one specific SOC, then the compatible property is enough, but if it's likely that others will have the same requirement in the future, I think it's much better to have just a single check rather than a list of SOCs. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: at91: add Shutdown Controller (SHDWC) DT support Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:16:06 +0000 Message-ID: <201203072116.07109.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120302192844.GB21255@game.jcrosoft.org> <201203071849.36867.arnd@arndb.de> <4F57BD04.5090002@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F57BD04.5090002-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 07 March 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > I still don't understand: Doesn't the property already give the information? > > In general, you should try to encode these things in specific properties instead of > > checking the compatible property. > > > > Or vice-versa, the compatible properties distinguish things enough that > the property is not needed. If it is fixed in the SOC design, then you > should distinguish things with the compatible property. Well, one of the two, basically. I would suggest using special properties in order to be prepared when other SOCs have the same requirement. If you know for certain that each one will only ever be needed in one specific SOC, then the compatible property is enough, but if it's likely that others will have the same requirement in the future, I think it's much better to have just a single check rather than a list of SOCs. Arnd