Re: [PATCH] powerpc: dts: t208x: Change T208x USB controller version

On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 23:45 -0500, Badola Nikhil-B46172 wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:07 AM
To: Badola Nikhil-B46172
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: dts: t208x: Change T208x USB controller version

On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 16:01 +0530, Nikhil Badola wrote:

quoted

Change USB controller version to 2.5 in compatible string for
T2080/T2081

Signed-off-by: Nikhil Badola <redacted>
---
	Checkpatch warnings handled by commit
61a8c2c6fe71082de3ea8629589dcdd0cc5c3f02

That checkpatch warning is known to have false positives in cases where the
binding says "<CHIPNAME>-device" or "device-<VERSION>".  If you want to
update the binding to give an example with a version, that's fine, but
checkpatch shouldn't be why.  We're not going to update the binding example
again to match a different version the next time one is added to a device tree...

quoted

	Documentation: dts: fsl-usb: Document USB node compatible string for

IP version

quoted

 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi

b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi
index 97479f0..aecee96 100644

--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi

@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@
 /include/ "qoriq-gpio-3.dtsi"
 /include/ "qoriq-usb2-mph-0.dtsi"
 	usb0: usb@210000 {
-		compatible = "fsl-usb2-mph-v2.4", "fsl-usb2-mph";
+		compatible = "fsl-usb2-mph-v2.5", "fsl-usb2-mph";

This is an example of why it's better to rely on version registers when present.

-Scott

Hi scott,

I can see this patch in "superseded" state in patchwork. As per our discussion the IP version checking is to be done by compatible string only, so can I proceed to send this patch again?

Sorry, apparently I thought that
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/383670/ was a newer version of the
patch, and didn't notice they were for different chips.  No need to
resend.  Thanks for pointing this out.

-Scott