On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:59:04AM +0000, Jonas Gorski wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2014-02-19 16:00 GMT-08:00 Jonas Gorski [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -857,6 +861,12 @@ static int bcm_uart_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
        return 0;
 }

+static const struct of_device_id bcm63xx_of_match[] = {
+       { .compatible = "brcm,bcm63xx-uart" },

From my understanding, this should be "brcm,bcm6345-uart", because
this kind of uart appeared first on bcm6345 (well, maybe bcm6335, no
idea which one of these two was first, but the latter was never
supported in mainline anyway).

That's right, in fact, I think it might be desirable to handle both
compatible string, just as a hint that it is compatible with the
entire bcm63xx family. Would that work for you?

I think using a "generic" compatible string is rather frowned upon
(what do you do if there is eventually a bcm63xx chip with an
incompatible uart?), but I'm no device tree expert.

As long as each compatible string entry describes something that has a
compatible programming model, there's no problem. The new UART wouldn't
be described with a string it's not compatible with.

I think "brcm,bcm6345-uart," is a nicer name to use for the moment than
"brcm,bcm63xx-uart" as it clearly describes a specific UART and is less
likely to be problematic in future if an incompatible UART appears.
Additionally, each compatible UART can have a more specific compatible
string entry that allows them to be more uniquely identified in case
they need to be handled specially in future. e.g:

  compatible = "brcm,bcm634x-uart", "brcm,bcm6345-uart";

Then if a bcm634y comes out with a UART that's not compatible with the
bcm6345 UART, it just needs:

  compatible = "brcm,bcm634y-uart";

Thanks,
Mark.