On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:47:21AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> A reasonable "compatible" value would be something like >>> "serial-eeprom-24c32". >>> You can go a little bit more generic than that, if you write up in >>> your binding how the driver should figure out the device size and >>> the protocol used. >> >> Matching on "serial-eeprom-24c32" requires me to convince the at24 >> authors to add that string as an alias binding for their driver. > > No, it requires the IIC subsystem to get fixed and not use OF > "compatible" values as module alias names.
Indeed; the device tree is just a data structure with a well defined usage model. It is the kernel's job to adapt that data into a form that it can use. >> How >> about "serial-eeprom,24c32" or "generic,24x32"? > > Neither "serial-eeprom" nor "generic" is the name of a vendor, so > no. The comma has a well-defined meaning. Why would a comma be > easier than a dash for your device matching code, anyway? Just to add my voice; I 100% agree. If it is not documented, and it doesn't fit with established conventions, then it shouldn't be used in the compatible field. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
