> OK, my board has DMI_BOARD_NAME as: > > "nETXe-TT 1.0GHz E2 KDMS-FRI" but will also undergo a rename in the > near future. I'm concerned about colliding as I believe this kit may > use the same board you are working with. This COM Express module will > be renamed "COMe-mTT10" which will match your strstr compare. You are right, the development kit uses a customized version of the COMe-mTT10. > So what does your DMI_BIOS_VERSION report? The BIOS for the stock COMe-mTT10 is prefixed with NTC1. > I didn't like basing this on BIOS_VERSION, but I did so at Kontron's > preference. Now we're seeing the fallout (sooner than I expected). Basically this is not a wrong decision, as the FRI2 project code is unique for the firmware used on the development kit. > So the question is, do we treat these as separate devices (the board > and the development kit which I believe includes your board) or do we > lump them together. To be safe we should treat them as separate devices and make sure we are able to differentiate between them. > Since it is the firmware that ultimately decides what the initial > UARTCLK is, we can't base this on the hardware alone. The hardware in > fact should be default if a firmware match isn't found first. So, my > preference would be that you move your new comparison AFTER the FRI2 > DMI_BIOS_VERSION comparison. This ensures the FRI2 doesn't match your > new comparison which might get a different UARTCLK in the future for > whatever reason. I understand your concerns and agree with you that in this case the BIOS version should be checked before the board name, same goes for the product name. So I will prepare a new patch that puts my BOARD_NAME comparison to the end. Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
