On 06.12.2012 17:22, Jon Hunter wrote: > > 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. I think we're talking about different things here since awhile. The patch I pointed you which is in mainline and which removes the reference to <plat/gpmc.h> from drivers/mtd/nand/omap2.c has nothing to do with my patch #4. It just solves Tony's concern that regarding the multi-arch zImages. My code in gpmc.c calls gpmc_nand_init() which in turn calls gpmc_hwecc_bch_capable(). Without path #4, gpmc_hwecc_bch_capable() will return 0, and the nand init will fail consequently, in mainline as well as in linux-next. I understood Tony that he wanted to remove the entiry function and do the check based on DT properties, which will then solve the problem on a different level. However, that change is planned for *after* the merge window. Daniel -- 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
