On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:39 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Reading strapping values and putting into DT seems like a perfectly > reasonable thing to do (I'm assuming the pins get initialized to their > function and reading them later is not possible), but that has nothing > to do coreboot really. We don't put things u-boot touches under a u-boot > node. These should go at the top-level IMO. Where, exactly? Do you have a suggested property name? Regarding compatible-based approach (from prior email): we do heavily use the top-level 'compatible' property too for a similar purpose, but sometimes there's a useful difference between "I booted with DTB <foo>, which is compatible with revision X, Y, Z, ..." and "the exact revision I booted is N". So the properties are definitely useful. > And maybe it is compelling to just take them having been in use for some > time on widely deploying devices, but that's not really good precedence. Well, we ain't changing the old firmware. Coming up with a new name can work, and we can modify new firmware to start doing both. But it'd still probably be wise to note what's actively in-use, especially if it's not substantively different than what we settle on. Brian _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
