From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Kerr Subject: Re: ARM machine specific DT probing Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:30:02 +0800 Message-ID: <1284355802.2877.56.camel@pororo> References: <1283994479.4420.6.camel@pororo> <20100913022036.GD5505@yookeroo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100913022036.GD5505@yookeroo> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: David Gibson Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org, Nicolas Pitre List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi David, > Hrm. The trouble with this idea is that it needs some measure of > "specificness of match", I was originally thinking an enum, something to indicate that the match is for a machine or SoC or SoC-family, but that may not be flexible enough. Essentially, all we really need to indicate is that "this match is more specific than that other match", which the match-table-ordering would work fine for. With the present infrastructure, we'd need to enforce this by controlling the link order. However, I don't have any good ideas about how we could do this neatly. Maybe we could get make to work out the dependencies (this mdesc needs to go before that one) for us :D Cheers, Jeremy