Re: ARM machine specific DT probing

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 05:56:17PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:40:20 -0600
> Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > - Revisit the meaning of top-level compatible.
> >   - I still don't think it makes sense for one board to claim
> >     compatibility with another,
> 
> Most of the time it doesn't, but there may be circumstances where things
> are only added, or where a new revision just fixes bugs but software
> that works around the bugs will still work.
> 
> If we don't allow claiming compatibility in those cases, it may
> encourage people to lie and claim to just be that old board with no
> more specific entry in the list (or just not put the board rev in the
> name at all -- which might be reasonable if the rev info is presented
> in a separate property, allowing things like greater-than/less-than
> comparisons).

I concur on the whole.  Claiming compatibility at the top-level has
its problems, but I don't think outright banning it is a nett win.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson