Re: [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: tps65086: Add DT bindings for the TPS65086 PMIC

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:46:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> 
> > > It is however the normal way we write compatible strings - the class
> > > information would normaly go in the node name (ie, i2c@7000c000 or
> > > whatever).
> 
> > I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it
> > for the aforementioned reasons.  I can also find 1000's of compatible
> > strings which do append "-<device_type>", so it's not exactly an
> > unheard of practice.
> 
> It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible strings
> that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it -
> we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising.  I'm not
> really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words
> for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT).

I'm not *that* fussed about it to justify starting-up wider community
discussions.

My only point is that:

  compatible = "<vendor>,udw9283";

... is meaningless gibberish and I think it'd be better to be more
forthcoming which prevents having to dig around in DTS files for the
node name/label for true device/type identification.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog