On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:59:51PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:52:20PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > > - all the integration parameters have been captured by the binding. > > - the block name really uniquely identifies this hardware. > > > > Some advocate putting SoC names everywhere in case software needs > > to work around some chip-specific bug, but more precise SoC > > information already exists in SVR, and board information already > > exists in the top-level device tree node. > > > > Note that sometimes the SoC name is a worse identifier than the > > block version, as the block version can change between revisions > > of the same SoC. > > > > As a matter of historical reference, neither SEC versions 2.x > > nor 3.x (driven by talitos) ever needed CHIP references. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <sigh> Very well. As long as some level of versioning is used on the > compatible values, I guess I can live with it. > > Acked-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Patch applied. Thanks! -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
