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

[Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>]

Matt Sealey wrote:
> 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.

The device-type thing shouldn't be used by Linux kernel.
Please, take a look at this discussion:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?order=date&id=13514
Thanks,
Valentine.

> 
>>> 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..
>