[PATCH v2 2/2] USB: doc: Binding document for ehci-platform driver

On 10/23/2012 08:10 AM, Alan Stern wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

quoted

I see.  But why would it be done this way instead having a separate 
property?

Well, I did say normally:-)

I can certainly see an argument for representing these differences using
custom properties, rather than deriving the information from the
compatible value. It's probably be OK to do so for something generic
like this; it's just perhaps not always the default choice.

Do note that even though this binding document dictates a particular
value for the compatible property, every device tree should additionally
add a separate value alongside it to indicate the specific HW model
that's actually present, so that if some device-specific bug-fix or
workaround needs to be applied, the model can be identified anyway.

So, rather than:

compatible = "usb-ehci";

You should always have e.g.:

compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ehci", "usb-ehci";

Given that, there is then always enough information in the device tree
for the driver to be able to derive the other values from the compatible
value.

Yes, I get it.

quoted

Whether you want to derive the information, or whether you want to
explicitly represent it via properties, is a decision to make based on
the trade-offs.

Oh, and I note that quite a few device trees already use compatible
value "usb-ehci" in their device-trees. Care needs to be taken not to
usurp that value from any existing device drivers if that was to be
picked as the compatible value required by this binding.

Right.  I think Tony's new binding should use compatible value 
"usb-ehci-platform".  It will essentially be a superset of "usb-ehci".

I know this is bike-shedding a little bit, but...

The word "platform" isn't really about describing the HW, but rather is
derived from the Linux SW used to program that HW. DT should be purely
about describing the HW.

Perhaps "usb-ehci-generic" or "usb-ehci-simple" would be better?