Hi Benoit,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 19:05:35, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> And in this case, you do not introduce any new revision.
>
> There is no point to update the binding each time we add a new SoC
> variant that will contain the exact same IP.
>
> I think it will mainly confuse the user that will wonder what is
> different in that version compare to the previous one, moreover we can
> end up with hundred of entries for the exact same IP for nothing.
>
> The real problem is due to the introduction of the SoC name in the
> device compatible name. That does introduced a SoC level information
> that is mostly irrelevant at device level. I can understand why it was
> done for practical aspect when the IP version is not well identified,
> but that can lead to this proliferation of new pointless bindings.
As opinions on $subject seems not yet to be conclusive, I plan to
rebase DTS patch (14/14) over your 'for_3.11/dts' branch (that makes
use of C preprocessor on OMAP DTS) and post separately dropping
11-14 patches, is that okay ?
Regards
Afzal
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
