Hi Baruch, > -----Original Message----- > From: Baruch Siach [mailto:baruch@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 2015年4月29日 10:08 > To: Wang Shenwei-B38339 > Cc: shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: imx: make the imx timer driver implementation > independent of SoCs. > > Hi Shenwei Wang, > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 02:55:52PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Baruch Siach [mailto:baruch@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: 2015年4月29日 9:26 > > > To: Wang Shenwei-B38339 > > > Cc: shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: imx: make the imx timer driver > > > implementation independent of SoCs. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:14:41AM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > > There are 4 versions of the timer hardware on Freescale MXC hardware. > > > > --Version 0: MX1/MXL > > > > --Version 1: MX21, MX27. > > > > --Version 2: MX25, MX31, MX35, MX37, MX51, MX6Q --Version 3: > > > > MX6DL, MX6SX > > > > > > > > This patch has removed the SoC related codes, and implemented the > > > > driver directly upon the hardware timer IP version. > > > > > > > > The new driver can be installed via device tree or the direct > > > > function call to mxc_timer_init in order to support imx legacy > > > > systems like > > > > MX21 and MX27. > > > > > > > > For the device tree implementation, the driver is compatible with > > > > the current bindings like "fsl,imx6q-gpt", but for future dts > > > > file, the string like "fsl,imx-gpt-v2" without SoC information is > recommended. > > > > > > That is not the usual convention for IP block versions. > > > > > > Please Cc the devicetree list (added). > > > > Thank you for the comments. What is the current naming rules for IP > > block version? It would be appreciated if you could provide an example. > > When several SoC share the same IP block the usual convention is to name it in > the compatible property string after the first SoC it appeared on. Just look at > some binding documentation from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/ to > find examples. The allwinner,sun5i-a13-hstimer property is shared by A10s and > A13 SoCs. The amlogic,meson6-timer is shared by Meson6 and Meson8 SoCs, and > so on. > If the same IP block is shared with several SoCs, why we gave them different compatible strings? If no changes in an IP block, I assume no changes in the relating driver as well. In this assumption, I don't see any need to introduce a new compatible string for an unchanged IP block in a new SoC. Shenwei > baruch > > -- > http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open > Systems > =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= > - baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il - ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
