From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:04:20 +0000 Subject: Machine ID question In-Reply-To: <201102141612.17340.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> References: <20110210082915.GV27982@pengutronix.de> <201102141612.17340.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com> Message-ID: <20110220130420.GD14495@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2011, 09:29:15 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform > > > in anticipation of > > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > > > > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in > > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create > > them there. > > Uhm, the last entry in the db was created today (14th Feb). Is there a reason > why there no new entries should be created? huh? The machine registry hands out MACH_foo identifiers. It used to hand them out as ARCH_foo identifiers, but we decided that was misleading - it's dealing with machines, not architectures. So a MACH_ prefix is more correct than an ARCH_ prefix.