Hi Mark, > On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:31 , Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On the other hand, I have no previous detailed knowledge of the beagle >> family. > > This is in no way specific to the BeagleBones, there's plenty of other > boards out there with similar setups like the Raspberry Pi and its > derivatives. > There are a lot of custom vendor boards that use it. We need to handle custom board too. >> - for bones with the same pinout: >> - the pins are routed to different function blocks on the >> SOC because different bones may have different SOCs? >> - the different functional blocks are compatible or not? > > This is the general case, there will be a substantial level of > compatibility between different base boards by virtue of the pinouts > being the same but obviously there will be some variation in the > specifics (and even where that exists it may not be enough to be visible > at the DT level for the most part). That said there will doubtless be > some plug in modules that want to rely on the specifics of a given base > board rather than remain compatible with general users of the interface. Even for plug in modules that need a specific board it is typical that new SoCs/boards appear in the future that are backwards compatible. Regards — Pantelis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
