[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags
On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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?
Why the user space should care about exact SOC ?

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-25 17:41    [W:0.088 / U:5.980 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site