On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 03:04:45PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > >>And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some > >>omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU, > >>DSP, CortexM3...). > >Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in > >fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the > >CPU). > But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too? That doesn't really matter so long as nobody else is actually doing it; you can't make a decision like this in an OMAP-specific fashion, you need to make sure everyone else is on board with the decision and make sure we've got at least at a high level way of representing the CPUs and SoCs in the device tree that people can buy into. -- 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
