Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags | From | santosh shilimkar <> | Date | Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:18:07 -0700 |
| |
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 ?
| |