Hi Simon,
On Thursday 22 August 2013 14:46:40 Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Hi Guennadi, Hi All,
>
> Olof has brought to my attention that there is some inconsistency in the way
> that compatibility strings for SHMobile are named and he has asked us to
> clean things up for v3.12.
>
> Looking through arch/arm/boot/dts/ I see that we have:
>
> 1. {gpio,pfc}-r8aXXXX and;
> 2. r8aXXXX-sdhi
>
> The inconsistency that Olof has asked us to resolve is that we should either
> use r8aXXXX- or -r8aXXXX. Not both.
>
> It seems to me that neither option is inherently better than the other
> so we should just choose the path of least resistance to make things
> consistent.
>
> Laurent, Guennadi, do you have any opinions on if it would be easier to
> change the GPIO and PFC compatibility strings; or to change the SDHI
> compatibility strings?
I don't think either of the options would be significantly more complex than
the other one.
> Ideally I would like you to come to some sort of consensus and send patches.
Shouldn't the consensus be ARM-wide instead of SH-wide ? Quoting one of my
replies to Stephen Warren from another mail thread:
> In the bindings I've seen, it's more typical for the compatible value to
> be ${vendor},${soc}-${unit} than ${vendor},${unit}-${soc}. I guess I
> don't know how common one format or the other is though.
I'm personally fine with both. However, when using a version number, the
format is ${vendor},${unit}-${version}. As we don't have an IP core version
number we use the SoC name instead, so ${vendor},${unit}-${soc} would make
sense. We should probably decide on one of the two alternatives and document
it.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
