On Wednesday 24 October 2012 14:04:12 Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > As long as no one enables both ehci-platform and ehci-ppc-of at the same time > > there is no problem. ehci-ppc-of should be removed in favor of ehci-platform > > and make sure that the specific quirk in ehci-ppc-of also gets ported, other > > that I see no issue using "usb-ehci" as the least detailed compatible property > > name. > > Suppose a DT board file is created for a oontroller which ehci-platform > can't handle. Then by your proposal, the board file shouldn't have > "usb-ehci" in its compatible property. > > Now later on, suppose ehci-platform is enhanced so that it can manage > that controller. It's too late to update the board file because the > information has already been written to various firmwares. The > enhanced ehci-platform would have to include a special entry to match > the controller. In any case you are supposed to use a compatible property which describes as much as possible your hardware, and this one should have the precedence if a special treatment is required, so I see no problem with this approach. > > Since this reasoning applies every time ehci-platform is updated, it > seems reasonable to use the same approach right from the beginning. > > Alan Stern > -- Florian -- 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
