From: Valentine Barshak <vbarshak@ru•mvista.com>
To: Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa•com>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell•net>,
linux-usb-devel@lists•sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH 1/2] USB: Rework OHCI PPC OF for new bindings
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:24:50 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4721CE82.1060202@ru.mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47211270.8010606@genesi-usa.com>
Matt Sealey wrote:
> Valentine Barshak wrote:
>> Matt Sealey wrote:
>>> Compatible property on /builtin@F0000000/usb@F0001000 is
>>
>> We should also keep "ohci-bigendian" and "ohci-be" in the match table.
>
> Eh.. maybe.
>
>>> I am currently moving on the assumption that the "correct" device
>>> tree for the Efika (notwithstanding the above) would be
>>>
>>> usb@F0001000 {
>>> device-type = "usb-ohci"
>>> compatible = "mpc5200-ohci,mpc5200-usb-ohci"
>>
>> It should also have compatible "usb-ohci" entry as a more general one.
>> Others are for device-specific quirks:
>> compatible = "mpc5200-usb-ohci","usb-ohci"
>
> Why? It's in the device_type. You don't need to duplicate it as compatible
> with the same value as in the device_type.
The device-type thing shouldn't be used by Linux kernel.
Please, take a look at this discussion:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?order=date&id=13514
Thanks,
Valentine.
>
>>> Using mpc5200-ohci out is by far the safest idea, although it
>>> leaves in a rather platform-specific fix, I prefer singling out that
>>> platform and potentially causing nasty looks towards the
>>> direction of Genesi/bplan, than having ohci-bigendian continue
>>> to exist for the sake of it :D
>>
>> So, do you suggest to use "mpc5200-ohci" instead of "ohci-be" in the
>> match table?
>
> Yes. I think ohci-be and ohci-bigendian should die. After all, it
> might get mixed with Firewire if you are not being careful.
>
> If we had to start again, device-type of "usb" (that just makes it
> easier all round, it allows a system based on the MPC5200B alone to
> make the assumption of OHCI), compatibles of "usb-ohci" (since this makes
> it very specific that it is not just USB, but the OHCI spec) and big-endian
> property would be all there would be.
>
> Model property would give the "mpc5200-ohci" value. Since nothing checks
> model (and this is not set on the firmware here), figuring on
> "mpc5200-ohci" as a compatible entry is good enough. Device-specific
> quirks should (Segher? Clarify please) never be futzed into compatible
> properties. At least the IEEE 1275 spec makes it clear that the model
> property is meant to clarify the particular device in question and is
> for information, I think defining a device as "USB", then subordinately
> as "OHCI flavor of USB" and particularly "the USB controller on an
> MPC5200 chip" (model) is all we need here, and in fact in any device.
>
> You could say the same about any other device - why is the current
> standard to give each node a unique name based on chip docs? 5200
> device tree spec says, use "gpt" as the name for the MPC5200 general
> purpose timers. Why not "timer" as the name, with "fsl,gpt" in the
> device_type or compatible property, and "mpc5200-gpt" in the model
> property? or "fsl,slt" compatible and "mpc5200-slt" model? Or
> "dma-controller" with a *model* of "bestcomm"?
>
> Some of this makes me grind my teeth so much..
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-26 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-24 16:22 [PATCH 0/2] USB: Rework OHCI PPC OF driver to support new bindings Valentine Barshak
2007-10-24 16:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] USB: Rework OHCI PPC OF for " Valentine Barshak
2007-10-24 22:05 ` Matt Sealey
2007-10-25 1:50 ` [linux-usb-devel] " David Brownell
2007-10-25 2:41 ` Grant Likely
2007-10-25 11:48 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-10-25 14:21 ` Grant Likely
2007-10-25 17:11 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-10-25 18:14 ` Matt Sealey
2007-10-25 18:13 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-10-25 18:10 ` Matt Sealey
2007-10-25 18:01 ` Matt Sealey
2007-10-25 18:50 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-10-25 22:02 ` Matt Sealey
2007-10-26 11:24 ` Valentine Barshak [this message]
2007-10-26 12:13 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-11-01 11:19 ` tnt
2007-11-01 12:44 ` Valentine Barshak
2007-11-01 13:46 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Dale Farnsworth
2007-10-24 16:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] PowerPC: Update USB OHCI DTS entires " Valentine Barshak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4721CE82.1060202@ru.mvista.com \
--to=vbarshak@ru$(echo .)mvista.com \
--cc=david-b@pacbell$(echo .)net \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
--cc=matt@genesi-usa$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox