Hi Kukjin,
On Friday 16 of August 2013 14:43:17 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Padmavathi Venna
> > <padm...@samsung.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > This patch removes quirks from i2s node and change the i2s
> > > compatible names.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Padmavathi Venna <padm...@samsung.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes since V4:
> > > - Mark Brown reverted the below two patches due to below
> > > build
> >
> > failure with
> >
> > > exynos_defconfig.
> > >
> > > "ARM: dts: exynos5250: move common i2s properties to
>
> exynos5
>
> > dtsi"
> >
> > > "ARM: dts: Change i2s compatible string on
> > > exynos5250"
> > >
> > > build error:
> > > DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dtb
> > > ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node
> > > or
> >
> > label "pdma1"
> >
> > > ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node
> > > or
> >
> > label "pdma1"
> >
> > > ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node
> > > or
> >
> > label "pdma0"
> >
> > > ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node
> > > or
> >
> > label "pdma0"
> >
> > > But with out "ARM: dts: Change i2s compatible string on exynos5250"
> > > will>
> > break the i2s
> >
> > > driver.
> > >
> > > So posting this patch now and will take care of posting other patch
> >
> > later after dependent
> >
> > > patches got merged.
> > >
> > > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 9 +++------
> > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> >
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> >
> > > index ef57277..376090f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
> > > @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@
> > >
> > > };
> > >
> > > i2s0: i2s@03830000 {
> > >
> > > - compatible = "samsung,i2s-v5";
> > > + compatible = "samsung,s5pv210-i2s";
> >
> > Device tree reviewers, this is something to look out for in the
> > future. Some samsung platforms/drivers use "samsung,<chip>-<ip>",
> > others "samsung,<ip>-<chip>". I don't personally care much one way or
> > another, but it really should be consistent.
>
> Hmm...I think, if "samsung,<ip name>-<ip version>" is possible, it would
> be nice. I remember there are no versions in datasheet for some IPs but
> something have like i2s and mfc. So "samsung,<ip>-<version>" is used
> for only i2s and mfc. But actually there are versions for Samsung IPs,
> no comments for that in datasheet. So I think, if Samsung can provide
> the specific version of Samsung IPs, we can use that like other
> platforms. I will prepare some table for that after meeting with
> Samsung hardware IP team so that samsung platform use one format
> "samsung,<ip>-<version>".Sorry, I don't think this is a good idea, unless you can force the IP team to release a version table containing version of _every_ IP for _every_ released SoC, including those historical ones, like S3C24xx and S3C64xx. Of course such tables should be available publicly. In addition, there might be other funny things going on with IPs and their surroundings, that could make a need to create several separate compatible values for the same IP revision, but on different SoCs, because it was integrated in a slightly different way. I believe we have choses the "samsung,<chip>-<ip>" scheme to avoid being dependent upon data that is not always publicly available, which is more future- (and past-) proof and also solves the integration problem. Best regards, Tomasz
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
