[PATCH 0/2] usb: exynos: Fix compatible strings used for device

[Kukjin Kim]

Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
Re-sending due to e-mail client problem...

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Vivek Gautam
> > <gautamvivek1987 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vivek Gautam
> > <gautamvivek1987 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Grant Likely
> > >> <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:22:26 +0530, Vivek Gautam
> > <gautam.vivek at samsung.com> wrote:
> > >>>> 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 <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > 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 at 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