Re: portable device tree connector -- problem statement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux