* Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [121205 15:26]: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:33:48 -0600, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/05/2012 04:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > Please, be specific. Use something like "ti,am3340-gpmc" or > > > "ti,omap3430-gpmc". The compatible property is a list so that new > > > devices can claim compatibility with old. Compatible strings that are > > > overly generic are a pet-peave of mine. > > > > We aim to use the binding for omap2,3,4,5 as well as the am33xx devices > > (which are omap based). Would it be sufficient to have "ti,omap2-gpmc" > > implying all omap2+ based devices or should we have a compatible string > > for each device supported? > > Are they each register-level compatible with one another? > > The general recommended approach here is to make subsequent silicon > claim compatibility with the first compatible implementation. > > So, for an am3358 board: > compatible = "ti,am3358-gpmc", "ti,omap2420-gpmc"; > > Essentially, what this means is that "ti,omap2420-gpmc" is the generic > value instead of "omap2-gpmc". The reason for this is so that the value > is anchored against a specific implementation, and not against something > completely imaginary or idealized. If a newer version isn't quite > compatible with the omap2420-gpmc, then it can drop the compatible claim > and the driver really should be told about the new device. The compatible property can also be used to figure out which ones need the workarounds in patch #4 of this series for the DT case. So we should be specific with the compatible. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
