On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
>>> + {
>>> + .compatible = "ti,am3352-cpsw",
>>
>> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
>> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific
>> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but
>> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the
>> driver subsystem.
>
> As I already mentioned in the cover letter and in the commit message, I
> just don't know which criteria makes most sense here.
>
> On a general note, I would say that chances that this exactly IP core
> with the same version number will appear on some other silicon which
> doesn't support the control mode register in an AM33xx fashion, is not
> necessarily negligible.
>
> So what that new compatible string denotes is the cpsw in a version as
> found on am3352 SoCs, which is actually exactly what it does.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion here, but see your point. I just don't
> have a better idea on how to treat that.
>
So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
That way if in future if someone uses those features, they can use
this compatible if they don't they use the one which suites that
SOC.
Regards,
Santosh
--
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
