On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:26:54PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for getting the discussion started. I've seen the same issue come > > up for arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500*uib.c and for the beaglebone. > > I'm sure there are many more, but we should make sure that everyone > > of these can live with whatever we come up with. > The same issue sort of comes up with any system that uses the idiom > to have a few GPIO lines indicate in a binary code what version of the > board we're dealing with and what devices are thus on it, right? > We have this issue for the U9540 reference design and potentially > on the Snowball as well. Yes, I think that's basically the same problem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
