On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:26:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > 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. What I suspect most people actually do here is google the part name if it's not obvious from context (presumably people with a compatible string only are either looking at the driver or some DT source instantiating it).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
