On 15 April 2014 14:48, Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/04/14 10:41, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 11:17, YoungJun Cho <yj44.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This patch adds sysreg device node, and sysreg property to fimd device node
>>> which is required to use I80 interface.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: YoungJun Cho <yj44.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5.dtsi | 6 ++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5.dtsi
>>> index 258dca4..f938bbb 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5.dtsi
>>> @@ -88,12 +88,18 @@
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> };
>>>
>>> + sys_reg: syscon@10050000 {
>>> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5-sysreg", "syscon";
>>
>> Do we really need a separate string for this? Can't we use
>> "samsung,exynos4-sysreg" itself?
>
> Currently only "syscon" is meaningful in Linux, and we add second SoC
> specific compatible to be able to distinguish between various SoC
> revisions, should any SoC specific quirks be handled in future.
> Thus there is no much point in adding "samsung,exynos4-sysreg" to
> exynos5.dtsi. We could as well only leave "syscon" entry alone.
> My suggestion is to keep "samsung,exynos5-sysreg", so for instance
> Exynos4 and Exynos5 SOC series SYSREG blocks can be identified in
> an OS.
Yes, this sounds reasonable.
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
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
