On 01/21/2014 06:01 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:34 +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote:

quoted

On 01/20/2014 11:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote:

quoted

On 01/17/2014 10:48 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

Why isn't the compatible "keymile,kmcoge4", like the model?

Because kmcoge4 is the board that is based on the kmp204x architecture/design.
We expect other boards (kmcoge7 for instance) based on the same kmp204x design.

The top-level compatible isn't for the "architecture" or the "design".
It's for the board.  Surely there's something different about kmcoge7
versus kmcoge4 -- is it visible to software?

There should only be a few differences in the dts between the two boards.

Reading the ePAPR my understanding was that compatible is the "programming
model" and that's what I have named above design/architecture while model is the
exact model of the device in this case the exact board name.

In practice, model is more for human consumption (e.g. there may be many
variants that all look identical to software).  The "programming model"
for an entire board includes everything on it.
 

quoted

quoted

quoted

You would prefer that I have the model and compatible stricly the same and add
any future board into the compatible boards[] from corenet_generic ?

That's how it's usually done.  Or, at least provide the board
architecture name as a secondary compatible after the board name.

quoted

If possible I would like to be able to see the boards that are based on a
similar design, that's what I wanted to achieve with this kmp204x name.

Is "kmp204x" an official name of the architecture, rather than a
generalization of "kmp2040" and "kmp2041"?  If there were a p2042, and
you made a board for it, is there any chance it would be called kmp204x
even if it were very different from the p2040/p2041 board?

It's the name we have picked up, but it's not official. We also use km83xx,
km82xx and it was derived from that.

If the hypothetical p2042 board was different it would then have another name.

In that case, I don't object to it being listed in compatible, though
the specific board name should come first.

OK then to sum up both points we would have:

	model = "keymile,kmcoge4";
	compatible = "keymile,kmcoge4", "keymile,kmp204x";

And I would add "keymile,kmcoge4" into the boards[] table.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

The device tree describes the hardware, not what driver you want to use.

Plus, I don't see any driver that matches "gen,spidev" nor any binding
for it, and "gen" doesn't make sense as a vendor prefix.  The only
instance of that string I can find in the Linux tree is in mgcoge.dts.

Well it comes from mgcoge and that's why I have used this

It's for usage with the spidev driver (driver/spi/spidev.c). I agree that the
gen brings nothing. Would

spidev@1 {
	compatible = "spidev";

make more sense ?

It doesn't address any of the other comments.

Can you please explicitly tell me how I should build this node ? What other
comments ? Must I be more generic with the name ?

Something like :

spi@1 {
	compatible = "zarlink,30343", "spidev";

Remove "spidev".  Any nodes under the SPI controller node will be SPI
devices, right?  So it doesn't add anything regarding hardware
description.
 

OK.

Thank you for the feedback, I will then send a revised patch as soon as I have time.

Valentin