Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device

[Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki
<sylvester.nawrocki-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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<dianders-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 =<new SoC using same IP>  },
>
>
> 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.
>

Ping !!


-- 
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html