On 02/02/2016 02:43 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Monday, February 01, 2016 at 10:03:35 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:39:17AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 03:26:08 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:34:45AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> All these SoCs should be capable of tweaking the block to fit their needs
>>> by just the DT properties. I believe they differ only in the FIFO depth
>>> and sometimes someone is greedy and uses 4:16 CS multiplexer, which is
>>> an external passive component, but that's all.
>>>
>>> Would we need soc-specific compatible strings if this is the case?
>>
>> It's nice when most things can be supported with a small set of DT
>> properties, as you've done. But IUIC, I think it's usually good practice
>> to define and use SoC-specific (or maybe SoC family) compatible strings
>> in the docs and DTS files, in addition to the generic one, in case there
>> are future quirks that need to be handled. Note that you don't actually
>> have to use these in the driver yet, but it's good to have a definition.
>> So you can, today, have:
>>
>> foo@xxxx {
>> compatible = "ti,baz-12345", "cdns,qspi-nor";
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> And we have the option to pick up "ti,baz-12345" in the Linux driver *if
>> needed.*
The support for TI SoC that has this IP is not in upstream yet. I will
add TI-specific compatible later. It will be:
foo@xxxx {
compatible = "ti,k2g-qspi", "cdns,qspi-nor";
...
};
--
Regards
Vignesh
--
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
