From: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
To: Li Yang-R58472 <LeoLi@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] More compatibles or more quirk properties
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:32:38 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49B0D196.7080207@firmworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net>
>
> I'm running into a dilemma choosing between two approaches of defining device tree binding. Let's say if we have several chips with a similar SoC block, but each of them have different quirks. If I define different compatibles for each of the chips, the driver will have a longer match table and thus bloat the device matching process. Or we can use a same compatible for all of them and define properties for each of the quirks. But it somewha
Properties to describe quirks precisely are definitely better. In fact,
that's fundamental principle - describe the situation, don't infer a
bunch of details from a name.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Li Yang-R58472 <LeoLi-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] More compatibles or more quirk properties
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:32:38 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49B0D196.7080207@firmworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274-bKEhWGtIRUJ4Lp7cDGe+DVjVikpgYyvb5NbjCUgZEJk@public.gmane.org>
>
> I'm running into a dilemma choosing between two approaches of defining device tree binding. Let's say if we have several chips with a similar SoC block, but each of them have different quirks. If I define different compatibles for each of the chips, the driver will have a longer match table and thus bloat the device matching process. Or we can use a same compatible for all of them and define properties for each of the quirks. But it somewha
Properties to describe quirks precisely are definitely better. In fact,
that's fundamental principle - describe the situation, don't infer a
bunch of details from a name.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-06 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-06 7:09 [RFC] More compatibles or more quirk properties Li Yang-R58472
2009-03-06 7:09 ` Li Yang-R58472
2009-03-06 7:32 ` Mitch Bradley [this message]
2009-03-06 7:32 ` Mitch Bradley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49B0D196.7080207@firmworks.com \
--to=wmb@firmworks.com \
--cc=LeoLi@freescale.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.