On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:56:46AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jason [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 07:34:33AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 23 February 2012, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On 02/22/2012 01:18 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+static const char *kirkwood_dt_board_compat[] = {
+ "marvell,dreamplug",
+ NULL
+};

Since you mention the name, it should probably be "globalscale,dreamplug"
because the device is made by GlobalScale instead of Marvell.

hmm, Globalscale Tech is, as I understand it, a turn-key manufacturer.
They are simply building Marvell's development platforms for them,
handling sales, etc. ?My impression was that Marvell designed the board
and contracted Globalscale to build and distribute it.

I don't care which we use, but is the convention to use the SoC designer
(marvell,dreamplug), the SoC (kirkwood,dreamplug), or the brand
(globalscale,dreamplug)?

If there is no set standard, I think the SoC is most accurate, as
nothing prevents a manufacturer from swapping out ICs/SoCs between
manufacturing runs of the same make/model. ?Look at certain wifi USB
devices for examples.

convention is to use the vendor of the device.  If it is marketed as a
Marvell product, then use "marvell,...".  If it is Globalscale, then
"globalscale,...".  The actual SoC on the device is irrelevant for the
top level compatible property name.

globalscale it is, then.  Thanks for the clarification.

thx,

Jason.