On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:46:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > > It is however the normal way we write compatible strings - the class > > information would normaly go in the node name (ie, i2c@7000c000 or > > whatever). > I didn't say it hasn't been done before, just that I didn't like it > for the aforementioned reasons. I can also find 1000's of compatible > strings which do append "-<device_type>", so it's not exactly an > unheard of practice. It's a pretty substantial change in the way we make compatible strings that we probably want to discuss more widely if we want to adopt it - we've not been using that idiom and it's pretty surprising. I'm not really sure it help much and we do already have the pre-@ noise words for this purpose (as well as comments in the DT).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
