From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9]:40254 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750727Ab3IFIJH (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:09:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:09:02 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: add a binding review checklist Message-ID: <20130906100902.13eb3c7a@skate> In-Reply-To: <20130905111918.GQ18206@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1378334532-21025-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20130905111918.GQ18206@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Stephen Warren , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Warren List-ID: Mark, Stephen, On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:19:18 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > +Compatible Property > > +------------------- > > + > > +A compatible value identifies a hardware module. It needs to identify the > > +vendor (e.g. NVIDIA), type or name of device (e.g. I2C), and version of the > > +device (e.g. an IP block version number or chip name). The following formats > > +of compatible value are acceptable: > > + > > +* ${vendor},${device}-${version} (e.g. ti,omap4-i2c) > > +* ${vendor},${version}-${device} (e.g. nvidia,tegra20-i2c) > > +* ${vendor},${device}-${version} (e.g. synopsis,dwc3) > > It would be nice to make it clear that the compatible string for a > device should (wherever possible) be the name of the specific IP block, > which isn't completely clear above (e.g. "arm,pl011" is preferred to > "arm,vexpress-v2m-serial"). It would be nice if we could avoid examples > with SoC names for this reason. > > Obviously there will be SoC-specific devices that will have SoC names in > their bindings. But those bindings should be considered carefully. I agree that it would be nice to make it clear that using the name of an SoC family in the compatible string is not a good idea, and that instead the name of the particular SoC that originally introduced the IP block should be used. I.e nvidia,tegra20-i2c is fine, but nvidia,tegra-i2c is not, because we have no idea what I2C controllers will be used on future Tegra SoCs. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com