On 09/23/2015 02:19 PM, santosh shilimkar wrote:
Nishant, On 9/22/2015 9:08 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:Keystone2 devices are used on more platforms than just Texas Instruments reference evaluation platforms called EVMs. Providing a generic compatible "ti,keystone" is not sufficient to differentiate various SoC definitions possible on various platforms. So, provide compatible matches for each SoC family by itself. This allows SoC specific logic to be run time handled based on of_machine_is_compatible("ti,k2hk") or as needed for the dependent processor instead of needing to use board dependent compatibles that are needed now. Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> ---You need to expand that 'not sufficient' for me. Unless there is genuine case to support this, I would want to avoid this churn.
I agree. If there are run time check required in code to treat the variants of Keystone SoC differently, then this change is needed. At this time, SoC DTS captures these differences. IMHO, If a future Keystone SoC support required SoC specific compatibility string to customize SoC specific initialization code, then it can be introduced at that time. I am not sure why this is introduced with out an example usage.
Regards, Santosh _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
-- Murali Karicheri Linux Kernel, Keystone -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
