On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:34 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Pawel Moll wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 21:19 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Pawel Moll wrote:

quoted

+                       compact-flash@1a000 {
+                               compatible = "ata-generic";
+                               reg = <0x1a000 0x100
+                                      0x1a100 0xf00>;
+                               reg-shift = <2>;
+                       };

Shouldn't there also be a more specific "compatible" value, in case we have
to detect this CF slot for some reason?

It was the compatible-value-of-choice in
"drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c", unfortunately undocumented - as I have
just realized - in the "Documentation/devicetree/bindings"...

You should certainly *also* have "ata-generic" in there as the value
that is used by the existing driver, but it usually makes sense to have
a more specific value in addition, just as a precaution for the future,
in case that the specific hardware is not entirely identical to all others
and we have to do a separate workaround.

Ok, as the actual "interface hardware" is a custom design for VE, I'll
make it:

	compatible = "arm,vexpress-cf", "ata-generic";

Does it make sense?

Cheers!

Paweł



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel