From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:54:45 -0400 Message-ID: <521785C5.9000903@ti.com> References: <1377267365-24057-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377267365-24057-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <52177052.1030308@ti.com> <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Benoit Cousson Cc: Daniel Mack , netdev@vger.kernel.org, nsekhar@ti.com, sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com, davem@davemloft.net, ujhelyi.m@gmail.com, mugunthanvnm@ti.com, vaibhav.bedia@ti.com, d-gerlach@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Friday 23 August 2013 11:22 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > [...] > >>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = { >>> + { >>> + .compatible = "ti,am3352-cpsw", >> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version >> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific >> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but >> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the >> driver subsystem. > > Hehe, welcome to the club! > I keep arguing about that as well :-) > > I think we should create a Facebook group: "against-the-soc-version-in-the-compatible-string". > Indeed !! Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:54:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string In-Reply-To: <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> References: <1377267365-24057-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377267365-24057-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <52177052.1030308@ti.com> <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> Message-ID: <521785C5.9000903@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 23 August 2013 11:22 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > [...] > >>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = { >>> + { >>> + .compatible = "ti,am3352-cpsw", >> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version >> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific >> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but >> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the >> driver subsystem. > > Hehe, welcome to the club! > I keep arguing about that as well :-) > > I think we should create a Facebook group: "against-the-soc-version-in-the-compatible-string". > Indeed !! Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:54:45 -0400 Message-ID: <521785C5.9000903@ti.com> References: <1377267365-24057-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377267365-24057-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <52177052.1030308@ti.com> <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Mack , , , , , , , , , , , To: Benoit Cousson Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:59603 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755681Ab3HWPzQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:55:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <52177E29.6040103@baylibre.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 23 August 2013 11:22 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > [...] > >>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = { >>> + { >>> + .compatible = "ti,am3352-cpsw", >> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version >> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific >> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but >> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the >> driver subsystem. > > Hehe, welcome to the club! > I keep arguing about that as well :-) > > I think we should create a Facebook group: "against-the-soc-version-in-the-compatible-string". > Indeed !! Regards, Santosh