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 12:56:40 -0400 Message-ID: <52179448.1020906@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> <52178E20.5040404@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52178E20.5040404@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: mugunthanvnm@ti.com, sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com, d-gerlach@ti.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, nsekhar@ti.com, vaibhav.bedia@ti.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, bcousson@baylibre.com, ujhelyi.m@gmail.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > >>> +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. > > As I already mentioned in the cover letter and in the commit message, I > just don't know which criteria makes most sense here. > > On a general note, I would say that chances that this exactly IP core > with the same version number will appear on some other silicon which > doesn't support the control mode register in an AM33xx fashion, is not > necessarily negligible. > > So what that new compatible string denotes is the cpsw in a version as > found on am3352 SoCs, which is actually exactly what it does. > > I don't have a strong opinion here, but see your point. I just don't > have a better idea on how to treat that. > So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc. That way if in future if someone uses those features, they can use this compatible if they don't they use the one which suites that SOC. Regards, Santosh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:56:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string In-Reply-To: <52178E20.5040404@gmail.com> References: <1377267365-24057-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377267365-24057-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <52177052.1030308@ti.com> <52178E20.5040404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52179448.1020906@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > >>> +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. > > As I already mentioned in the cover letter and in the commit message, I > just don't know which criteria makes most sense here. > > On a general note, I would say that chances that this exactly IP core > with the same version number will appear on some other silicon which > doesn't support the control mode register in an AM33xx fashion, is not > necessarily negligible. > > So what that new compatible string denotes is the cpsw in a version as > found on am3352 SoCs, which is actually exactly what it does. > > I don't have a strong opinion here, but see your point. I just don't > have a better idea on how to treat that. > So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc. That way if in future if someone uses those features, they can use this compatible if they don't they use the one which suites that SOC. Regards, Santosh