From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:35:41 -0800 Message-ID: <054601cdf862$534a8ad0$f9dfa070$@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <50DB811A.8010408-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Content-language: en-us List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: 'Sylwester Nawrocki' , 'Vivek Gautam' Cc: jg1.han-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, 'Rob Herring' , cpgs-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, 'Alan Stern' , 'Vivek Gautam' List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > >>>> These two changes look good to me. For both of them: > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson > >>> > >>> Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be used. > >> But > >>> you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another > confusion > >>> on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use > >>> common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver > like > >>> following? > >>> > >>> - { .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. Thanks. - Kukjin