Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 1/2] USB: Rework OHCI PPC OF for new bindings

[Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>]

Valentine Barshak wrote:
> Matt Sealey wrote:
>> Compatible property on /builtin@F0000000/usb@F0001000 is
> 
> We should also keep "ohci-bigendian" and "ohci-be" in the match table.

Eh.. maybe.

>> I am currently moving on the assumption that the "correct" device
>> tree for the Efika (notwithstanding the above) would be
>>
>> usb@F0001000 {
>>     device-type = "usb-ohci"
>>     compatible = "mpc5200-ohci,mpc5200-usb-ohci"
> 
> It should also have compatible "usb-ohci" entry as a more general one.
> Others are for device-specific quirks:
> compatible = "mpc5200-usb-ohci","usb-ohci"

Why? It's in the device_type. You don't need to duplicate it as compatible
with the same value as in the device_type.

>> Using mpc5200-ohci out is by far the safest idea, although it
>> leaves in a rather platform-specific fix, I prefer singling out that
>> platform and potentially causing nasty looks towards the
>> direction of Genesi/bplan, than having ohci-bigendian continue
>> to exist for the sake of it :D
> 
> So, do you suggest to use "mpc5200-ohci" instead of "ohci-be" in the 
> match table?

Yes. I think ohci-be and ohci-bigendian should die. After all, it
might get mixed with Firewire if you are not being careful.

If we had to start again, device-type of "usb" (that just makes it
easier all round, it allows a system based on the MPC5200B alone to
make the assumption of OHCI), compatibles of "usb-ohci" (since this makes
it very specific that it is not just USB, but the OHCI spec) and big-endian
property would be all there would be.

Model property would give the "mpc5200-ohci" value. Since nothing checks
model (and this is not set on the firmware here), figuring on
"mpc5200-ohci" as a compatible entry is good enough. Device-specific
quirks should (Segher? Clarify please) never be futzed into compatible
properties. At least the IEEE 1275 spec makes it clear that the model
property is meant to clarify the particular device in question and is
for information, I think defining a device as "USB", then subordinately
as "OHCI flavor of USB" and particularly "the USB controller on an
MPC5200 chip" (model) is all we need here, and in fact in any device.

You could say the same about any other device - why is the current
standard to give each node a unique name based on chip docs? 5200
device tree spec says, use "gpt" as the name for the MPC5200 general
purpose timers. Why not "timer" as the name, with "fsl,gpt" in the
device_type or compatible property, and "mpc5200-gpt" in the model
property? or "fsl,slt" compatible and "mpc5200-slt" model? Or
"dma-controller" with a *model* of "bestcomm"?

Some of this makes me grind my teeth so much..

-- 
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations