From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifier definition Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:06:14 -0600 Message-ID: <4B4E0B96.1030204@freescale.com> References: <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA30590506E@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <50433.84.105.60.153.1263320254.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA305988778@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Grant Likely Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248 , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, parch-QRwYI7m9GJLYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Grant Likely wrote: > Oh, and BTW, this is *exactly* why I advocate being explicit about > what part the node describes instead of depending on some generic > name. ie. "fsl,p4080-mpic" instead of "chrp,open-pic". So that you > can deal with part specific oddities and so you can create new > bindings when necessary. Nodes can still put backwards compatible > entries in the compatible list after the specific device when > appropriate so that existing drivers can still bind to them. I fully agree that there should be a more specific compatible -- this doesn't replace that (indeed, it's required to interpret the implementation-specific sections of the specifier). The question is whether we could still include chrp,open-pic in the compatible list if there are additional bits set in the interrupt specifier. -Scott