From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Gautam Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:58:59 +0530 Message-ID: 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=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50DB811A.8010408-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Alan Stern , Grant Likely , Kukjin Kim , Sylwester Nawrocki , Doug Anderson , balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org, Thomas Abraham , Rob Herring , jg1.han-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, Vivek Gautam List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:28 AM, 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. > 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