On 01/21/2014 06:01 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:34 +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote: >> On 01/20/2014 11:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote: >>>> On 01/17/2014 10:48 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> Why isn't the compatible "keymile,kmcoge4", like the model? >>>> >>>> Because kmcoge4 is the board that is based on the kmp204x >>>> architecture/design. >>>> We expect other boards (kmcoge7 for instance) based on the same kmp204x >>>> design. >>> >>> The top-level compatible isn't for the "architecture" or the "design". >>> It's for the board. Surely there's something different about kmcoge7 >>> versus kmcoge4 -- is it visible to software? >> >> There should only be a few differences in the dts between the two boards. >> >> Reading the ePAPR my understanding was that compatible is the "programming >> model" and that's what I have named above design/architecture while model is >> the >> exact model of the device in this case the exact board name. > > In practice, model is more for human consumption (e.g. there may be many > variants that all look identical to software). The "programming model" > for an entire board includes everything on it. > >>>> You would prefer that I have the model and compatible stricly the same and >>>> add >>>> any future board into the compatible boards[] from corenet_generic ? >>> >>> That's how it's usually done. Or, at least provide the board >>> architecture name as a secondary compatible after the board name. >>> >>>> If possible I would like to be able to see the boards that are based on a >>>> similar design, that's what I wanted to achieve with this kmp204x name. >>> >>> Is "kmp204x" an official name of the architecture, rather than a >>> generalization of "kmp2040" and "kmp2041"? If there were a p2042, and >>> you made a board for it, is there any chance it would be called kmp204x >>> even if it were very different from the p2040/p2041 board? >> >> It's the name we have picked up, but it's not official. We also use km83xx, >> km82xx and it was derived from that. >> >> If the hypothetical p2042 board was different it would then have another >> name. > > In that case, I don't object to it being listed in compatible, though > the specific board name should come first.
OK then to sum up both points we would have: model = "keymile,kmcoge4"; compatible = "keymile,kmcoge4", "keymile,kmp204x"; And I would add "keymile,kmcoge4" into the boards[] table. > >>>>> The device tree describes the hardware, not what driver you want to use. >>>>> >>>>> Plus, I don't see any driver that matches "gen,spidev" nor any binding >>>>> for it, and "gen" doesn't make sense as a vendor prefix. The only >>>>> instance of that string I can find in the Linux tree is in mgcoge.dts. >>>> >>>> Well it comes from mgcoge and that's why I have used this >>>> >>>> It's for usage with the spidev driver (driver/spi/spidev.c). I agree that >>>> the >>>> gen brings nothing. Would >>>> >>>> spidev@1 { >>>> compatible = "spidev"; >>>> >>>> make more sense ? >>> >>> It doesn't address any of the other comments. >> >> Can you please explicitly tell me how I should build this node ? What other >> comments ? Must I be more generic with the name ? >> >> Something like : >> >> spi@1 { >> compatible = "zarlink,30343", "spidev"; > > Remove "spidev". Any nodes under the SPI controller node will be SPI > devices, right? So it doesn't add anything regarding hardware > description. > OK. Thank you for the feedback, I will then send a revised patch as soon as I have time. Valentin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev