Hi Kukjin, On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kukjin Kim wrote: >> > Re-sending due to e-mail client problem... > >> Doug Anderson wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam >> > <gautamvivek1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam >> > <gautamvivek1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely >> > >> <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam >> > <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >>>> Using chip specific compatible string as it should be. >> > >>>> So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos >> > >>>> which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for >> > >>>> [PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver >> > >>>> available at: >> > >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Vivek Gautam (2): >> > >>>> usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device >> > >>>> usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device >> > >>> >> > >>> for both patches: >> > >>> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >>> >> > > >> > > Any more thought about this patch-set? >> > > Or does this change seems fine? >> > >> > These two changes look good to me. For both of them: >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be used. > But >> you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another confusion >> on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use >> common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver like >> following? >> >> - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" }, >> + { .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" }, >> >> Or if any version or something, how about following? >> >> + { .compatible = "samsung,dwc-v3" }, >> Well, yes the newer SoCs with same IP using the chip name can cause some confusion, but won't it be fine that - "Newer parts using the same core can claim compatibility by including the older string in the compatible list" - as quoted by Grant Likely Or, can we try another option, using multiple compatible strings for SoC specific in of_match_table, so that we don't create any confusion by using same compatible for newer SoCs also. Like, - { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" }, + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwc3" }, + { .compatible = <new SoC using same IP> }, >> - Kukjin > -- Thanks & Regards Vivek -- 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
