Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-binding: ptp: add bindings document for dte based ptp clock
From: Scott Branden
Date: Tue Jun 20 2017 - 16:48:39 EST
On 17-06-18 07:04 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 01:26:00PM -0700, Arun Parameswaran wrote:
Add device tree binding documentation for the Broadcom DTE
Bindings describe h/w, not drivers.
PTP clock driver.
Signed-off-by: Arun Parameswaran <arun.parameswaran@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ptp/brcm,ptp-dte.txt | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ptp/brcm,ptp-dte.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ptp/brcm,ptp-dte.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ptp/brcm,ptp-dte.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+* Broadcom Digital Timing Engine(DTE) based PTP clock driver
Looks too generic. You need SoC specific compatible strings.
+- compatible: should be "brcm,ptp-dte"
Rob, could you please help me understand the use of adding SoC specific
I still don't get it.
It's my understanding that the SoC compatibility string is to future
proof against bugs/incompatibilities
between different versions of the hardware block due to integration
issues or any other reason.
You can then compare in your driver because the strings were already
used in the dtb.
That would make sense if you can't already differentiate what SoC you
are running on.
But the SoC is already specified in the root of the device tree in the
Why can't you just use of_machine_is_compatible inside your driver when
Please explain what I'm missing. I see other drivers already following
approach and it makes more sense to me than adding SoC specific
compatible strings into every