[PATCH v7 5/5] ARM: OMAP: gpmc: add DT bindings for GPMC timings and NAND

[Jon Hunter]

On 12/05/2012 06:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> [121205 15:26]:
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:33:48 -0600, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter at ti.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2012 04:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please, be specific. Use something like "ti,am3340-gpmc" or
>>>> "ti,omap3430-gpmc". The compatible property is a list so that new
>>>> devices can claim compatibility with old. Compatible strings that are
>>>> overly generic are a pet-peave of mine.
>>>
>>> We aim to use the binding for omap2,3,4,5 as well as the am33xx devices
>>> (which are omap based). Would it be sufficient to have "ti,omap2-gpmc"
>>> implying all omap2+ based devices or should we have a compatible string
>>> for each device supported?
>>
>> Are they each register-level compatible with one another?
>>
>> The general recommended approach here is to make subsequent silicon
>> claim compatibility with the first compatible implementation.
>>
>> So, for an am3358 board:
>> 	compatible = "ti,am3358-gpmc", "ti,omap2420-gpmc";
>>
>> Essentially, what this means is that "ti,omap2420-gpmc" is the generic
>> value instead of "omap2-gpmc". The reason for this is so that the value
>> is anchored against a specific implementation, and not against something
>> completely imaginary or idealized. If a newer version isn't quite
>> compatible with the omap2420-gpmc, then it can drop the compatible claim
>> and the driver really should be told about the new device.
> 
> The compatible property can also be used to figure out which ones
> need the workarounds in patch #4 of this series for the DT case.
> So we should be specific with the compatible.

We should not merged patch #4. Daniel included this here because he is
using this on the current mainline, however, this is not needed for
linux-next and so we should drop it.

Cheers
Jon