On 03/02/2011 04:46 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/01/2011 07:35 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >> On 03/02/2011 04:21 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> On 03/01/2011 07:11 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >>>> On 03/02/2011 03:55 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>>>> On 03/01/2011 06:41 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >>>>>> On 03/02/2011 03:23 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: <snip> >> The only real objection I have to adding the SoC family information is >> basically to discourage it being abused by userspace. I can see it being >> useful in debug situations, but I can also see stupid userspace >> applications explicitly testing for some particular SoC, rather than >> more correctly (IMHO) checking for presence of certain drivers etc. > > True, but so many other things could be misused by stupid userspace > programs. When there are legitimate usecases, I think we shouldn't > prevent them just because we think a stupid userspace program could > misuse it. > > Again, although you might not be gung-ho about this, I think I have at > least made you indifferent/mildly supportive to adding socinfo. If you > don't mind, I would like to wait for others to chime in before > continuing this discussion. Agreed. In general I am in support of having the SoC information exposed somewhere. I think we just want to be careful that it doesn't become a dumping ground for anything and everything SoC related whether the information is useful or not. I think each piece of exposed information should have a genuine use case, not just "because we can". ~Ryan -- Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre Ryan Mallon 5 Amuri Park, 404 Barbadoes St ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PO Box 13 889, Christchurch 8013 http://www.bluewatersys.com New Zealand Phone: +64 3 3779127 Freecall: Australia 1800 148 751 Fax: +64 3 3779135 USA 1800 261 2934 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
