On Friday 23 August 2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> 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.
>
We cannot map control module register with CPSW IP version as both comes
from different design team and CPSW ip version can be same across SoC
and gmii sel register definition can be different. Control module
defines may vary in different SoC as per SoC requirements.
Adding Pekon Gupta who had worked in Silicon team before.
Regards
Mugunthan V N
--
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
