Kukjin Kim wrote:

Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...

Doug Anderson wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam

[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam

[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Using chip specific compatible string as it should be.
So fixing this for ehci-s5p, ohci-exynos and dwc3-exynos
which till now used a generic 'exynos' in their compatible strings.

This goes as per the discussion happened in the thread for
[PATCH v2] ARM: Exynos5250: Enabling dwc3-exynos driver
available at:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg74145.html

Vivek Gautam (2):
  usb: ehci-s5p/ohci-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device
  usb: dwc3-exynos: Fix compatible strings for the device

for both patches:
Acked-by: Grant Likely <redacted>

Any more thought about this patch-set?
Or does this change seems fine?

These two changes look good to me.  For both of them:

Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Well, I have another idea. Yes, I know, specific chip name should be used.

But

you know the specific chip name in compatible can cause another confusion
on other SoC which has same IP. So I think, we need to consider to use
common name or any specific name not chip in compatible for IP/driver like
following?

-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos-dwc3" },
+	{ .compatible = "samsung,synopsis-dwc3" },

Or if any version or something, how about following?

+	{ .compatible = "samsung,dwc-v3" },

- Kukjin