On 07/25/2013 11:51 PM, Alan Cooper wrote:
The node should be named just "usb", not "xhci" (no programming interface specific names), according to the ePAPR spec [1].
What about the existing node names "ohci@" and "ehci@"?
Unfortunately, they are all wrong, as many others. It seems almost nobody reads:
http://www.devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage
Can you point me to the section that indicates ohci/ehci/xhci are incorrect?
http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage#Node_Names
See also section 2.2.2 in the ePAPR spec.
WBR, Sergei
I read http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage#Node_Names to say not to use vendor specific names and xhci is not vendor specific.
ePAPR states: "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model." And while xhci does describe the programming interface, it also describes the functionality
No, actually, it says nothing to a person not familiar with the xHCI spec. There's for example also AHCI which is not a USB controller but SATA one.
and fits in better with the already established "ehci" and "ohci" node names.
These are not yet set in stone (see e.g. the ongoing discussion on linux-arm-kernel about the broken bindings, calling up some volunteers to clean them up). Moreover, ePAPR further lists the appropriate device names, "usb" amongst them.
Al
WBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
