On 1/19/2017 12:17 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 01/19/2017 12:07 PM, Scott Branden wrote: >> Hi Florian, >> >> On 17-01-19 11:40 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> On 01/19/2017 11:30 AM, Scott Branden wrote: >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> On 17-01-19 09:36 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 01:35:07PM +0530, Raviteja Garimella wrote: >>>>>> This patch adds device tree bindings documentation for Synopsys >>>>>> USB device controller platform driver. >>>>> >>>>> Bindings describe h/w, not drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Raviteja Garimella <raviteja.garimella@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt | 27 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git >>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>> index 0000000..0c18327 >>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ >>>>>> +Synopsys USB Device controller. >>>>>> + >>>>>> +The device node is used for Synopsys Designware Cores AHB >>>>>> +Subsystem Device Controller (UDC). >>>>>> + >>>>>> +This device node is used by UDCs integrated it Broadcom's >>>>>> +Northstar2 and Cygnus SoC's. >>>>> >>>>> You need compatible strings for these in addition. >>>>> >>>> We don't need compatibility strings when an IP block is integrated into >>>> an SoC. Otherwise each time we add the IP block to a new SoC we would >>>> need to update ever linux driver that supports that SoC. That doesn't >>>> make sense? >>> >>> You probably do need such a thing, here is how the compatible strings >>> for IP blocks integrated into SoCs could be used: >>> >>> - provide a compatible strings which describes exactly the integration >>> of this peripheral into a given SoC, e.g: brcm,udc-ns2, the reason for >>> that is that you want to be able to capture the specific IP block >>> integration into a specific SoC and all its quirks >>> >>> - if the block has its own revision scheme (and it can be relied on), >>> provide it: brcm,udc-v1.2 and that is probably the most meaningful >>> compatible string for a client program here >>> >>> - have a some kind of fallback/catchall compatible string that describes >>> the block: brcm,udc which may also work just fine, although is not >>> preferred >>> >>> Defining compatible strings is meant to avoid making (possibly >>> incompatible) Device Tree binding changes in the future, and you always >>> have the liberty as a client program (OS, bootloader) to match only the >>> compatible strings you care about, from the most specific (which >>> includes the exact SoC) to the least specific. >>> >>> The key thing is that, if the full set of compatible strings are present >>> and available, you can retroactively fix your driver to be more >>> specific, very much less so your Device Tree blob (although there is >>> disagreement). >>> >> The driver stands alone from the SoC and does not need compatibility >> strings per SoC. New SoCs will use the exact same block. > > Even if you take the exact same block and put it in a different SoC, > that's still an integration work that 99% of the time goes just fine > because the validation worked great, and the 1% of the time where you > need to capture an integration bug, you are glad this SoC-specific > compatible string exists such that you can work around it in the driver. That's a very conservative estimate. Based on my experience, it's more like 50/50, i.e., roughly half of the time we found SoC integration specific quirks or workaround are needed. > > One way to solve that is to use SoC specific compatible strings because > that presents itself as a self-contained and standardized way, or you > can have your driver call into a piece of code that reads the SoC > type/revision, but AFAICT this seems to be frowned upon because it > presents some kind of layering violation. > >> >> We don't add compatibility strings to any other drivers when we add the >> same block to a new SoC. > > Ideally we would define new compatible strings for each new SoC we tape > out, yet don't necessarily match them in client programs, but just > define them as a safeguard in case something went wrong at the > integration stage that is discovered after the fact. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
