From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.180]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA05DDDE39 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:31:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so2783262wag for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:31:06 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Stephen Neuendorffer" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Device tree bindings for Xilinx devices In-Reply-To: <20071016232404.5F4D51130091@mail133-blu.bigfish.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20071015155223.7403.39615.stgit@trillian.cg.shawcable.net> <20071016232404.5F4D51130091@mail133-blu.bigfish.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Wolfgang Reissnegger , Leonid List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > It occurs to me that the 'compatible' bindings should probably be the > name of the preferred driver for the device. > > > + l) Xilinx ML300 Framebuffer > > + - compatible : Must include "xilinx,ml300-fb" > Should probably be 'xilinxfb', and probably shouldn't reference ML300 at > all. Actually, I don't think xilinx,ml300-fb is not specific enough (as opposed to not general enough). Given that the device tree is supposed to describe the hardware as uniquely as possible, compatible should probably contain a value like "xilinx,plb-tft-cntlr-ref-1.00.c" (,,). A design with a modified fb core might specify: compatible = "acme,super-tft-1.3","xilinx,plb-tft-cntlr-ref-1.00.c"; Which indicates that it is a different part, but it provides the same interface as the preexisting plb-tft-cntrl-ref ip core. Similarly, a newer reference design which uses a new version of the tft core should specifiy: compatible = "xilinx,plb-tft-cntrl-ref-1.00.d","xilinx,plb-tft-cntlr-ref-1.00.c"; That way the exact type of device is specified; but it is *compatible* with the older device. If the newer device has a greater feature set, then a driver that can match against the leftmost compatible value can make use of the extra features. > > > + n) Xilinx EMAC and Xilinx TEMAC > > + > > + Xilinx Ethernet devices. Uses common properties from > > other Ethernet > > + devices with the following constraints: > > + > > + Required properties: > > + - compatible : Must include one of: "xilinx,plb-temac", > > + "xilinx,plb-emac", "xilinx-opb-emac" > Should probably be just 'emac' and 'temac'. Actually; looking at the available ip cores; it should probably be: "xilinx,opb-ethernet-1.02.a" for an emac driver "xilinx,plb-temac-3.00.a" for a temac. We should probably use the exact names of the ip core. Less ambiguity that way. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195