lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags
On 09/24/2015 10:54 AM, Murali Karicheri wrote:
[...]
> ti,omap3 is the family of omap3 devices similar to keystone. ti,omap3450
> is required if there is an exceptional treatment required for ti,omap3450.
>
> In keystone case so far there is no case of exceptional treatment
> required in the code for a specific SoC. So a generic name, ti,keystone
> is used. When exceptional treatment is needed in the future, for example
> k2hk Soc, we should introduce SoC specific string in the following order.

Did you do a grep on the code to see?
$ git grep ti,omap3 arch/arm/mach-omap2/
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3430",
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3",
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap36xx",
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c: "ti,omap3-beagle",

This is the same as keystone's device support. even though only 36xx was
needed, we introduced other SoC specific compatibility match.

> "ti,k2hk-evm", "ti,k2hk", "ti,keystone"
>
> So unless there is an exception, there is no need for a SoC specific
> string in the compatibility string list. So this can be added later if
> there is need for exceptional treatment. Did I get it wrong?
>

I see both your views seem to be "if we dont need a compatible" dont add
it. My view was based on "be accurate in the hardware description"

OK - i will probably agree on the topic. But, how about userspace
needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on
board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that?

--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-25 17:21    [W:0.063 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site