Padma Venkat wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Mark Brown > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:24:14PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:12:53 +0530, Padmavathi Venna > <padma.v@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > +- compatible : "samsung,samsung-i2s" > > > >> Isn't that kind of redundant? :-) > > > >> The format of the compatible strings should be "<vendor>,<part- > number>-i2s". > >> Please be specific about the part number that you're doing the binding > >> for. For example; use "samsung,exynos4210-i2s" instead of > "samsung,exynos-i2s". > > > > There are actually versioned IPs here (where the versions are used > > publically in a few places) but it's not clearly documented which is > > which. It would be reasonable to use the IP versions here I think. > > Samsung has three i2s drivers one for s3c24xx, one for s3c2412 and one > for rest of the platforms. The above mentioned other platforms has > Version 3/4/5 of i2s controllers. This dt binding is for for the i2s Where is the version defined such as 3, 4, 5? So, what is the "sound/soc/Samsung/s3c-i2s-v2.[ch]"? > driver that has support for Version 3/4/5 of i2s controller. So > "samsung,i2s-v5" is okay as compatible name? Please suggest me. > I agree with using version here but we need some consensus about that. - Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |