From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rs35.luxsci.com (rs35.luxsci.com [66.216.127.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F15DDDB6 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:38:24 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <49B0D196.7080207@firmworks.com> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:32:38 -1000 From: Mitch Bradley MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Li Yang-R58472 Subject: Re: [RFC] More compatibles or more quirk properties References: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> In-Reply-To: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitch Bradley Subject: Re: [RFC] More compatibles or more quirk properties Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:32:38 -1000 Message-ID: <49B0D196.7080207@firmworks.com> References: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3A45394FD742FA419B760BB8D398F9ED29E274-bKEhWGtIRUJ4Lp7cDGe+DVjVikpgYyvb5NbjCUgZEJk@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Li Yang-R58472 Cc: linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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.