On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 05:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:03:06PM +0100, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > I have a question regarding how a compatible string should be created. > > The simple case is obvious: > > <IP-vendor>,<IP-type/name>-<IP-revision> > > > > But what is the recommended string for a SOC specific implementation of > > that IP? Let's say for > > <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<SOC-revision> > > how would I assemble a compatible string to identify the SOC-specific > > implementation of IP? > > I think my biggest confusion is which vendor string to use in that case. > > But in general I'm curious whether some best practice exists for these > > cases. > > > > I think what I've seen most is: > > <SOC-vendor>,<SOC-name>-<IP-type> > > > > But one could probably argue whether to rather use IP-vendor, appending > > all the revision strings, ... > > I would expect that the vendor prefix would be the last entity along the > chain which altered the IP in some way. Say foo sells device to bar, who > do nothing other than sell it to baz who do some hacks to integrate it. > For that I'd expect something like: > > compatible = "baz,soc-device", "foo,device"; > > I'm not sure with revisions (they're not always that useful), but I'd > expect that to be kept next to the element it represent the revision > for: > > "baz,soc-vX-device-vY", "bar,soc-device-vY", "foo,device-vY", > "foo,device-vY"; Thanks, Mark! Sören -- 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
