On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:45PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > + Example:
> > > +
> > > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > > + compatible = "fsl,mpc8360-qe-muram-usb-pram",
> > > + "fsl,qe-muram-usb-pram",
> > > + "fsl,cpm-muram-usb-pram";
> > > + reg = <0x8b00 0x100>;
> > > + };
>
> Why not put it as an additional reg resource on the ucc node, instead of
> in its own node? That's how existing CPM bindings do it.
hmmm, yeah, that sounds like a better approach.
>
> > > + t) Freescale QUICC Engine USB Controller
> > > +
> > > + Required properties:
> > > + - compatible : should be "fsl,<chip>-qe-usb", "fsl,qe-usb",
> > > + "fsl,usb-fhci"
> >
> > Again, I'd leave out "fsl,qe-usb" and "fsl,usb-fhci".
>
> QE is the name of a specific IP block, and is unlikely to be broken in a
> non-backwards-compatible manner without having a new name such as QE2. I
> think this is taking "no generic names" too far.
I'll just leave my comment as "I disagree" and resist the temptation
to rehash my argument. :-)
> If these names *are*
> left out, then at least document which chip we're supposed to pick out of
> a hat to claim compatibility with.
I agree with that.
>
> -Scott
>
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
