On 12/06/2012 10:54 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > 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. Ok, yes I see that now. I should have looked more closely at 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. Well now that it is only being called from within the platform code and not from drivers, it is ok. 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
