On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:46:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > > > > It is however the normal way we write compatible strings - the class > > > information would normaly go in the node name (ie, i2c@7000c000 or > > > whatever). > > > I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it > > for the aforementioned reasons. I can also find 1000's of compatible > > strings which do append "-<device_type>", so it's not exactly an > > unheard of practice. > > It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible strings > that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it - > we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising. I'm not > really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words > for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT). I'm not *that* fussed about it to justify starting-up wider community discussions. My only point is that: compatible = "<vendor>,udw9283"; ... is meaningless gibberish and I think it'd be better to be more forthcoming which prevents having to dig around in DTS files for the node name/label for true device/type identification. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
