On 01/04/2016 11:38 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Le 04/01/2016 10:42, Neil Armstrong a écrit :
quoted
static const struct macb_config zynqmp_config = {
.caps = MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE | MACB_CAPS_JUMBO,@@ -2801,6 +2806,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id macb_dt_ids[] = {
{ .compatible = "cdns,at32ap7000-macb" },
{ .compatible = "cdns,at91sam9260-macb", .data = &at91sam9260_config },
{ .compatible = "cdns,macb" },
+ { .compatible = "cdns,npx-macb", .data = &npx_config },
I can accept that, but I think that you'd better make your device tree
compatibility string *not* generic. Name it by the first NPx SoC or
perfectly compatible SoC family that has this configuration and you'll
be able to make the NP(x+1) compatible with it.
Well, the first Soc having this configuration is Np4, would cdns,np4-macb be ok ?
It has proven to be much more future proof and even if in the early days
of DT on ARM we accepted some binding with generic strings like this one
below, It has proven to be a mistake.
quoted
{ .compatible = "cdns,gem", .data = &pc302gem_config },
{ .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-gem", .data = &sama5d2_config },
Neil