Hi Afzal, On 06/03/2013 09:49 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > 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 ? Yes, that sounds good to me. Thanks, Benoit -- 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
