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

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 23:45 -0500, Badola Nikhil-B46172 wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Wood Scott-B07421
> >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:07 AM
> >To: Badola Nikhil-B46172
> >Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org; devicetree at 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:
> >> Change USB controller version to 2.5 in compatible string for
> >> T2080/T2081
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Badola <nikhil.badola at freescale.com>
> >> ---
> >> 	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...
> >
> >> 	Documentation: dts: fsl-usb: Document USB node compatible string for
> >IP version
> >>
> >>  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 at 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 I can see this patch in "superseded" state in patchwork.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http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/383670/ was a newer version of the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