On 12/05/2012 06:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * 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. We should not merged patch #4. Daniel included this here because he is using this on the current mainline, however, this is not needed for linux-next and so we should drop it. Cheers Jon -- 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
