On 01/04/2016 11:38 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Le 04/01/2016 10:42, Neil Armstrong a écrit :
>> static const struct macb_config zynqmp_config = {
>> .caps = MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE | MACB_CAPS_JUMBO,
>> @@ -2801,6 +2806,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id macb_dt_ids[] = {
>> { .compatible = "cdns,at32ap7000-macb" },
>> { .compatible = "cdns,at91sam9260-macb", .data = &at91sam9260_config },
>> { .compatible = "cdns,macb" },
>> + { .compatible = "cdns,npx-macb", .data = &npx_config },
>
> I can accept that, but I think that you'd better make your device tree
> compatibility string *not* generic. Name it by the first NPx SoC or
> perfectly compatible SoC family that has this configuration and you'll
> be able to make the NP(x+1) compatible with it.
Well, the first Soc having this configuration is Np4, would cdns,np4-macb be ok ?
>
> It has proven to be much more future proof and even if in the early days
> of DT on ARM we accepted some binding with generic strings like this one
> below, It has proven to be a mistake.
>
>> { .compatible = "cdns,gem", .data = &pc302gem_config },
>> { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-gem", .data = &sama5d2_config },
>>
>
>
Neil
--
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
