On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/02/2015 10:20 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: >>> >>> >> Is there a good example I can look or a wiki about the device-tree >> naming conventions? There are many examples. Generally, it is the form of: <vendor>,<chip/soc>-<block name> >> >> I'm more of an ACPI person than DTS. > > > I think Rob is talking about something like this: > > compatible="qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", "qcom,hidma-mgmt" > > This specifies that this is the v1.0 of the HIDMA management engine (or, the > management engine for the 1.0 HIDMA device). That way, if in the future > there's a v1.1, you can do this: > > compatible="qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", "qcom,hidma-mgmt" Except I was suggesting not using 1.0 or 1.1. There is one main exception and that is Xilinx blocks, but they are releasing versions of blocks to customers. If "1.0" is not a well defined number, then don't use that. I'd be surprised if any SOC vendor had such well defined process around versioning of their IP blocks such that they are well documented and guaranteed such that every change will change the version. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
