On 16/05/14 21:01, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> IMHO appending -omap-dss to a random device is an even bigger hack, >> since its adding lots of bloat to the API. Let's assume there is >> another OS using DT for ARM, but has no proper API for SPI >> controllers and it introduces your hack to SPI devices. That would >> mean each SPI device has -omap-spi appended (or -exynos-spi, >> -foo-spi, ...). At least I would blame them for creating a huge >> unmaintainable mess. > > I think you're misunderstanding. I do not want the naming to > be Linux specific. The naming should naturally be as hardware > specific as possible. In this case something like: > > compatible = "sharp,ls037v7dw01-dss", "sharp,ls037v7dw01"; > > Or we should probably use: > > compatible = "sharp,ls037v7dw01-dpi", "sharp,ls037v7dw01"; > > As dpi here reflects the hardware it's connected to. The dss > is probably a Linux name. Well, "dss" or "omapdss" is as much a hardware term as "dpi". And "dpi" wouldn't really be a good extension, as what we want is an omapdss driver specific compatible string. So I think "-omapdss" is the best extension if that method is used. But I don't think that's really the point. The point is that the panel's compatible string should be "sharp,ls037v7dw01", nothing else. All the variations of "sharp,ls037v7dw01-dss" are not correct, and are only made for Linux SW reasons. So I would say they are Linux specific SW names, even if the words themselves are also HW terms. > Not use what you're after with the SPI example though, but sounds > like that's something different. I think Sebastien's example is just like the issue here. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
