[PATCH v4 0/2] ohci and ehci-platform clks, phy and dt support
From: Tomasz Figa <hidden>
Date: 2014-01-12 13:04:26
Also in:
linux-devicetree
Hi, [Cc'ing DT maintainers directly] On 12.01.2014 04:04, Tony Prisk wrote:
On 12/01/14 11:30, Alan Stern wrote:quoted
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Hans de Goede wrote:quoted
Hi, On 01/11/2014 12:50 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:quoted
Hello. On 01/11/2014 01:46 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:quoted
Here is v4 of my ohci and ehci-platform clks, phy and dt support patch-set, this version should be 100% ready for merging upstream.I see you've decided to completely ignore my opinion. NAK, FWIW.I'm sorry but the whole prefix thing has become a thing of -ETOOMUCHBIKESHEDDING, everyone except you seems to be fine with mmio and and one point in time we need to make a decision and move forward.If this isn't beating a dead horse... Maybe everyone can agree on a name like ohci-generic or generic-ohci. That seems like a pretty good description of the hardware that the platform driver can handle. Alan SternI prefer the -generic option, although generic- is equally fine - Having said that, I don't really care if it's called mmio either (although this does seem less 'descriptive').
Grepping over existing dts files, I can find several occurrences of "usb-ehci" compatible string: at91sam9g45.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ehci", "usb-ehci"; at91sam9x5.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ehci", "usb-ehci"; omap3.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ehci-omap", "usb-ehci"; omap4.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ehci-omap", "usb-ehci"; omap5.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ehci-omap", "usb-ehci"; sama5d3.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ehci", "usb-ehci"; spear13xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ehci", "usb-ehci"; spear13xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ehci", "usb-ehci"; spear3xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ehci", "usb-ehci"; spear600.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ehci", "usb-ehci"; spear600.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra114.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra114.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra20.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra20.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra20.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra30.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra30.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci"; tegra30.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci"; Same for "usb-ohci": arch/arm/boot/dts/at91rm9200.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi: compatible = "nxp,ohci-nxp", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ohci-omap3", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ohci-omap3", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi: compatible = "ti,ohci-omap3", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi: compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear3xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear3xx.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear600.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; arch/arm/boot/dts/spear600.dtsi: compatible = "st,spear600-ohci", "usb-ohci"; For "usb-ehci" there is even a documentation file [1], while "usb-ohci" seems to be undocumented. [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-ehci.txt Aren't they both something that should be accounted for in this series? Best regards, Tomasz