On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:59:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:41 AM David Gibson ><david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> It's not really about who consumes it. It's about defining a >> namespace for the new property to exist in, since it's not part of a >> relevant standard (if we wanted to make it such, we should pin down >> what goes in there with much more precision). > >I can't think of any cases of the 'linux' prefix not being about who >consumes it. And we often end up dropping 'linux' because it turns out >to not be Linux specific. I don't care to see u-boot,build-info, >freebsd,build-info, etc. when a given dtb can only have 1 of those. Yes, exactly. What would happen if somebody (tried to) fill in more than one of XXXX.build-info? It makes no sense. >My intent is this property name is added to the DT spec, but I don't >agree we should define what's in it beyond a string. It is information >that is useful for humans identifying what the dtb was built from. Nod - defining this as a free-form string lets people put their own information in, without us having to try and agree on a full spec which we'll need to update as ideas change. -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
