From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B45B62C00BD for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:48:49 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:48:38 -0600 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added device tree binding for TDM and TDM phy To: Singh Sandeep-B37400 References: <1357133120-2271-1-git-send-email-Sandeep@freescale.com> <3F1D9DCAAB49B94D88DBE05911FA4E6E69CEB8@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1357776425.18196.18@snotra> <3F1D9DCAAB49B94D88DBE05911FA4E6E69E4F0@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <3F1D9DCAAB49B94D88DBE05911FA4E6E69E4F0@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net> (from B37400@freescale.com on Thu Jan 10 03:24:21 2013) Message-ID: <1357847318.27576.9@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/10/2013 03:24:21 AM, Singh Sandeep-B37400 wrote: > > > > +- compatible > > > > + Value type: > > > > + Definition: Should contain generic compatibility like > > > "tdm-phy-slic" > > > > or > > > > + "tdm-phy-e1" or "tdm-phy-t1". > > > > Does this "generic" string (plus the other properties) tell you all =20 > you > > need to know about the device? If there are other possible =20 > "generic" > > compatibles, they should be listed or else different people will =20 > make up > > different strings for the same thing. >=20 > This property will describe the type of device, and will help TDM =20 > framework > to know if it is E1/T1/SLIC device. Further details can be extracted =20 > from other > compatible strings. > There are only three generic compatibles field types, which are =20 > already mentioned > in definition. Do I need to make this thing more clear. The word "like" suggests that there are other possibilites. It would =20 be clearer as: Definition: One of "tdm-phy-slic", "tdm-phy-e1", or "tdm-phy-t1". -Scott=