On 11/2/2015 12:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
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.
Here is one.
I have two versions of the same IP. The first version in one chip has
sw_version register that returns 1.0. The second version which has more
capabilities has 1.1 in it.
Is it OK to use?
compatible="qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", "qcom,hidma-mgmt"
for now and
compatible="qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", "qcom,hidma-mgmt"
later for the second chip? 1.1 is backwards compatible with 1.0 BTW.
Since the same IP goes into multiple chips, why would you list the chip
name here and submit patches multiple times for each single chip.
or to follow what Timur did, I can do this.
"qcom,qdf2xxx-hidma-mgmt-1.0"
qdf2xxx would become the chip family.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
