From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:50:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags In-Reply-To: <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> Message-ID: <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/24/2015 10:54 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote: [...] > ti,omap3 is the family of omap3 devices similar to keystone. ti,omap3450 > is required if there is an exceptional treatment required for ti,omap3450. > > In keystone case so far there is no case of exceptional treatment > required in the code for a specific SoC. So a generic name, ti,keystone > is used. When exceptional treatment is needed in the future, for example > k2hk Soc, we should introduce SoC specific string in the following order. Did you do a grep on the code to see? $ git grep ti,omap3 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3430", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3-beagle", This is the same as keystone's device support. even though only 36xx was needed, we introduced other SoC specific compatibility match. > "ti,k2hk-evm", "ti,k2hk", "ti,keystone" > > So unless there is an exception, there is no need for a SoC specific > string in the compatibility string list. So this can be added later if > there is need for exceptional treatment. Did I get it wrong? > I see both your views seem to be "if we dont need a compatible" dont add it. My view was based on "be accurate in the hardware description" OK - i will probably agree on the topic. But, how about userspace needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:50:07 -0500 Message-ID: <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56041CA4.40208-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Murali Karicheri , Nishanth Menon , santosh shilimkar , Santosh Shilimkar Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/24/2015 10:54 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote: [...] > ti,omap3 is the family of omap3 devices similar to keystone. ti,omap3450 > is required if there is an exceptional treatment required for ti,omap3450. > > In keystone case so far there is no case of exceptional treatment > required in the code for a specific SoC. So a generic name, ti,keystone > is used. When exceptional treatment is needed in the future, for example > k2hk Soc, we should introduce SoC specific string in the following order. Did you do a grep on the code to see? $ git grep ti,omap3 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3430", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3-beagle", This is the same as keystone's device support. even though only 36xx was needed, we introduced other SoC specific compatibility match. > "ti,k2hk-evm", "ti,k2hk", "ti,keystone" > > So unless there is an exception, there is no need for a SoC specific > string in the compatibility string list. So this can be added later if > there is need for exceptional treatment. Did I get it wrong? > I see both your views seem to be "if we dont need a compatible" dont add it. My view was based on "be accurate in the hardware description" OK - i will probably agree on the topic. But, how about userspace needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756594AbbIYOuj (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:50:39 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:39301 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750850AbbIYOui (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:50:38 -0400 Message-ID: <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:50:07 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Murali Karicheri , Nishanth Menon , santosh shilimkar , Santosh Shilimkar CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.22.168.21] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/24/2015 10:54 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote: [...] > ti,omap3 is the family of omap3 devices similar to keystone. ti,omap3450 > is required if there is an exceptional treatment required for ti,omap3450. > > In keystone case so far there is no case of exceptional treatment > required in the code for a specific SoC. So a generic name, ti,keystone > is used. When exceptional treatment is needed in the future, for example > k2hk Soc, we should introduce SoC specific string in the following order. Did you do a grep on the code to see? $ git grep ti,omap3 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3430", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx", arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3-beagle", This is the same as keystone's device support. even though only 36xx was needed, we introduced other SoC specific compatibility match. > "ti,k2hk-evm", "ti,k2hk", "ti,keystone" > > So unless there is an exception, there is no need for a SoC specific > string in the compatibility string list. So this can be added later if > there is need for exceptional treatment. Did I get it wrong? > I see both your views seem to be "if we dont need a compatible" dont add it. My view was based on "be accurate in the hardware description" OK - i will probably agree on the topic. But, how about userspace needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon