Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] xen: arm: update multiboot device tree bindings.

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>]

On 07/24/2014 03:30 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 13:34 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> From f9e80ead57b9f739c3041fe5abc4b23c8f0eb18f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>> From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:16:31 +0100
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] xen: arm: document boot module compatibility based on
>>>>>  ordering
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt |    8 +++++++-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
>>>>> index d967061..ad98bf3 100644
>>>>> --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
>>>>> +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
>>>>> @@ -23,7 +23,13 @@ Each node contains the following properties:
>>>>>  	compatible string (if one applies) in addition to the generic
>>>>>  	string (which must always be present).
>>>>>  
>>>>> -        Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings
>>>>> +	Xen will assume that the first module which lacks a more
>>>>
>>>> With this change, it's not clear that Xen 4.4 doesn't support boot
>>>> module ordering. I would precise Xen 4.5 and onwards.
>>>
>>> Note that a paragraph further down still reads:
>>> 	For compatibility with Xen 4.4 the more specific "xen,linux-*"
>>> 	names are non-optional and must be included.
>>
>> Oh right, I forgot there was a paragraph about it.
>>
>> So this change looks good to me.
> 
> May I take that as an Ack?

I though have acked it on a previous mail...

Anyway:

Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>

Regards,


-- 
Julien Grall