On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 01:01:06PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 13/01/2020 11:42, Mark Brown wrote: > > The idiomatic approach appears to be for individual board vendors > > to allocate IDs, you do end up with multiple IDs from multiple > > vendors for the same thing. > But I am not sure how appropriate that same approach would be for some 3rd > party memory part which we're simply wiring up on our board. Maybe it is. It seems to be quite common for Intel reference designs to assign Intel IDs to non-Intel parts on the board (which is where I became aware of this practice). > > In general there's not really much standardizaiton for devices, > > the bindings that do exist aren't really centrally documented and > > the Windows standard is just to have the basic device > > registration in the firmware and do all properties based on > > quirking based on DMI information. > OK, so there is always DMI. I hoped to avoid this sort of thing in the linux > driver :) Yes, there are some merits to an approach like that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
