From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:49:39 +0100 Message-ID: <50FE52A3.8030807@samsung.com> References: <1355410348-5129-1-git-send-email-gautam.vivek@samsung.com> <20121215072014.2E05E3E0AE3@localhost> <016901cde163$6be034c0$43a09e40$@samsung.com> <50DB811A.8010408@gmail.com> <054601cdf862$534a8ad0$f9dfa070$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <054601cdf862$534a8ad0$f9dfa070$@samsung.com> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kukjin Kim Cc: 'Sylwester Nawrocki' , 'Vivek Gautam' , 'Doug Anderson' , balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, 'Thomas Abraham' , linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, 'Alan Stern' , 'Grant Likely' , 'Rob Herring' , jg1.han-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, 'Vivek Gautam' , cpgs-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On 01/22/2013 06:35 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>>> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" }, >>>>> + { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" }, >>>>> >>>>> Or if any version or something, how about following? >>>>> >>>>> + { .compatible = "samsung,dwc-v3" }, >>>>> >>> Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some >>> confusion, but won't it be fine that - >>> "Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by >>> including the older string in the compatible list" - as quoted by Grant > Likely >>> >>> Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for >>> SoC specific >>> in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same >>> compatible for newer SoCs also. Like, >>> >>> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" }, >>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwc3" }, >>> + { .compatible = }, >> >> Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I > believe >> IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is >> instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not >> be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each > instance. >> I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds >> to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property >> seems more clear to me. >> > Well, I don't think so. Let's see the DMAC PL330. Its compatible is > "arm,pl330" and "arm,primecell" not SoC/Chip name. I think DWC is a same > case or at least similar. > > You know, the DWC is a IP from Synopsis and I _Believe_ it has a kind of > version and it can be used for identify. That's a good point, but isn't DesignWare just a name of a family of IP cores from Synopsys [1] ? And what would DWC be supposed to signify ? DesignWare Controller ? Wouldn't that be too generic ? Synopsys seems to offer multiple different controllers and any of them could eventually end up in a specific SoC [2]. Maybe the compatible property should be something like: compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwc-3", "synopsys,dw-usb-3"; or compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-usb3", "synopsys,dw-ss-usb3"; ? Or anything more specific in the synopsys part to indicate which exactly USB controller IP is used ? [1] http://www.synopsys.com/IP/InterfaceIP/USB/Pages/default.aspx [2] http://www.synopsys.com/IP/InterfaceIP/Pages/default.aspx -- Regards, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html