From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756998AbbIYPSn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:18:43 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:29337 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756643AbbIYPSk (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:18:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags To: Nishanth Menon , Murali Karicheri , Santosh Shilimkar References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org From: santosh shilimkar Organization: Oracle Corporation Message-ID: <560565AF.2010701@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:18:07 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09/24/2015 10:54 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote: > [...] >> ti,omap3 is the family of omap3 devices similar to keystone. ti,omap3450 >> is required if there is an exceptional treatment required for ti,omap3450. >> >> In keystone case so far there is no case of exceptional treatment >> required in the code for a specific SoC. So a generic name, ti,keystone >> is used. When exceptional treatment is needed in the future, for example >> k2hk Soc, we should introduce SoC specific string in the following order. > > Did you do a grep on the code to see? > $ git grep ti,omap3 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3430", > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3", > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx", > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3-beagle", > > This is the same as keystone's device support. even though only 36xx was > needed, we introduced other SoC specific compatibility match. > >> "ti,k2hk-evm", "ti,k2hk", "ti,keystone" >> >> So unless there is an exception, there is no need for a SoC specific >> string in the compatibility string list. So this can be added later if >> there is need for exceptional treatment. Did I get it wrong? >> > > I see both your views seem to be "if we dont need a compatible" dont add > it. My view was based on "be accurate in the hardware description" > > OK - i will probably agree on the topic. But, how about userspace > needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on > board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? > Why the user space should care about exact SOC ?