On 11/18/2011 12:49 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Peter De Schrijver wrote at Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:19 AM: >>> This patch adds the initial device tree for tegra30 >> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.txt >> ... >>> +* harmony: tegra20 based development board >>> +Required root node properties: >>> + - compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20"; >>> + >>> +* seaboard: tegra20 based clamshell reference design >>> +Required root node properties: >>> + - compatible = "nvidia,seaboard", "nvidia,tegra20"; >> >> Do we really want to list all the board names here? In the future, there >> could be tens or hundreds. I would argue that we should just document >> nvidia,tegra20 and nvidia,tegra30. > > Agreed. It's not really any different than mach-types which does have every board in it. I think if a board requires a new dts, then it needs a unique name. > >> At a later point, we should fix board-dt.c to solely look for those >> compatible values, although this will have to wait until the pinmux DT >> bindings are present. Then, the kernel won't care about the board names. > > Exactly. That is perfectly acceptable, but you should still have the option to do something specific for any given board. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
