* Compatible string best practices
@ 2014-05-23 15:03 Sören Brinkmann
[not found] ` <cc5b8415-4297-49fb-8a2c-bdc4b1b19c2c-neA4ZlFjCT3DAA6W7k9C4mYJ4DzVTqeXkX/xN29GLwg@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sören Brinkmann @ 2014-05-23 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
Cc: Sören Brinkmann, git-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA
Hi,
I have a question regarding how a compatible string should be created.
The simple case is obvious:
<IP-vendor>,<IP-type/name>-<IP-revision>
But what is the recommended string for a SOC specific implementation of
that IP? Let's say for
<SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<SOC-revision>
how would I assemble a compatible string to identify the SOC-specific
implementation of IP?
I think my biggest confusion is which vendor string to use in that case.
But in general I'm curious whether some best practice exists for these
cases.
I think what I've seen most is:
<SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<IP-type>
But one could probably argue whether to rather use IP-vendor, appending
all the revision strings, ...
Thanks,
Sören
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Compatible string best practices
[not found] ` <cc5b8415-4297-49fb-8a2c-bdc4b1b19c2c-neA4ZlFjCT3DAA6W7k9C4mYJ4DzVTqeXkX/xN29GLwg@public.gmane.org>
@ 2014-05-23 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2014-05-27 17:15 ` Sören Brinkmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-05-23 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sören Brinkmann
Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
git-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I have a question regarding how a compatible string should be created.
> The simple case is obvious:
> <IP-vendor>,<IP-type/name>-<IP-revision>
>
> But what is the recommended string for a SOC specific implementation of
> that IP? Let's say for
> <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<SOC-revision>
> how would I assemble a compatible string to identify the SOC-specific
> implementation of IP?
> I think my biggest confusion is which vendor string to use in that case.
> But in general I'm curious whether some best practice exists for these
> cases.
>
> I think what I've seen most is:
> <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<IP-type>
>
> But one could probably argue whether to rather use IP-vendor, appending
> all the revision strings, ...
I would expect that the vendor prefix would be the last entity along the
chain which altered the IP in some way. Say foo sells device to bar, who
do nothing other than sell it to baz who do some hacks to integrate it.
For that I'd expect something like:
compatible = "baz,soc-device", "foo,device";
I'm not sure with revisions (they're not always that useful), but I'd
expect that to be kept next to the element it represent the revision
for:
"baz,soc-vX-device-vY", "bar,soc-device-vY", "foo,device-vY",
"foo,device-vY";
Cheers,
Mark.
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Compatible string best practices
2014-05-23 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2014-05-27 17:15 ` Sören Brinkmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sören Brinkmann @ 2014-05-27 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
git-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 05:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I have a question regarding how a compatible string should be created.
> > The simple case is obvious:
> > <IP-vendor>,<IP-type/name>-<IP-revision>
> >
> > But what is the recommended string for a SOC specific implementation of
> > that IP? Let's say for
> > <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<SOC-revision>
> > how would I assemble a compatible string to identify the SOC-specific
> > implementation of IP?
> > I think my biggest confusion is which vendor string to use in that case.
> > But in general I'm curious whether some best practice exists for these
> > cases.
> >
> > I think what I've seen most is:
> > <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<IP-type>
> >
> > But one could probably argue whether to rather use IP-vendor, appending
> > all the revision strings, ...
>
> I would expect that the vendor prefix would be the last entity along the
> chain which altered the IP in some way. Say foo sells device to bar, who
> do nothing other than sell it to baz who do some hacks to integrate it.
> For that I'd expect something like:
>
> compatible = "baz,soc-device", "foo,device";
>
> I'm not sure with revisions (they're not always that useful), but I'd
> expect that to be kept next to the element it represent the revision
> for:
>
> "baz,soc-vX-device-vY", "bar,soc-device-vY", "foo,device-vY",
> "foo,device-vY";
Thanks, Mark!
Sören
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-27 17:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-23 15:03 Compatible string best practices Sören Brinkmann
[not found] ` <cc5b8415-4297-49fb-8a2c-bdc4b1b19c2c-neA4ZlFjCT3DAA6W7k9C4mYJ4DzVTqeXkX/xN29GLwg@public.gmane.org>
2014-05-23 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2014-05-27 17:15 ` Sören Brinkmann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).