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
--
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
