On 12/24/2012 09:13 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
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> },
Yes, why not just use an SoC name where given IP first appeared ? I believe
IP revision numbers are not always well documented. Also when an IP is
instantiated multiple times in specific SoC, its revision number might not
be sufficient to determine the system integration details for each instance.
I think having version for some devices and SoC name for others just adds
to the confusion. Thus using specific chip name in the compatible property
seems more clear to me.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
--
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
