On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 06:38:02AM +0530, Padma Venkat wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As Russell indicated you should really keep the old name around, though > > marking them as deprecated is OK. However I'm not sure anyone will have > > deployed this so I'm not sure how much it matters - every downstream > > kernel I've seen was still using board files anyway. > This is there only on exynos5250.dtsi, so changing this file alone is > enough. patch3 in > this series have the same. The idea with DT is that you can bake the DT into a board firmware and then upgrade the kernel without upgrading the DT. > Having only the version info is confusing. When I posted my previous version of > patches I was clear which version introduced in which platform and > again if I come > back today and see I again had to search each SoC datasheet. So I think this > patch now clearly explains what new support introduced in which > version of IP and which > SoC platform. Like I keep saying the problem we've always had is that there's never been a 1:1 mapping between SoCs and IIS IPs, and of course nobody can get the documentation on the older SoCs outside of Samsung so... If it were a linear march forward in terms of IP it'd be a lot easier :(
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
