Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: add a binding review checklist

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Mark, Stephen,

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:19:18 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > +Compatible Property
> > +-------------------
> > +
> > +A compatible value identifies a hardware module. It needs to identify the
> > +vendor (e.g. NVIDIA), type or name of device (e.g. I2C), and version of the
> > +device (e.g. an IP block version number or chip name). The following formats
> > +of compatible value are acceptable:
> > +
> > +* ${vendor},${device}-${version} (e.g. ti,omap4-i2c)
> > +* ${vendor},${version}-${device} (e.g. nvidia,tegra20-i2c)
> > +* ${vendor},${device}-${version} (e.g. synopsis,dwc3)
> 
> It would be nice to make it clear that the compatible string for a
> device should (wherever possible) be the name of the specific IP block,
> which isn't completely clear above (e.g. "arm,pl011" is preferred to
> "arm,vexpress-v2m-serial"). It would be nice if we could avoid examples
> with SoC names for this reason.
> 
> Obviously there will be SoC-specific devices that will have SoC names in
> their bindings. But those bindings should be considered carefully.

I agree that it would be nice to make it clear that using the name of
an SoC family in the compatible string is not a good idea, and that
instead the name of the particular SoC that originally introduced the
IP block should be used. I.e nvidia,tegra20-i2c is fine, but
nvidia,tegra-i2c is not, because we have no idea what I2C controllers
will be used on future Tegra SoCs.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com