From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:10:38 +0100
Subject: Proposal: mach-dt
In-Reply-To: <51D42F3C.3020805@codeaurora.org>
References: <1372839486.487159774@f54.mail.ru> <51D3ECD1.8030305@arm.com>
 <51D42F3C.3020805@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <51D430DE.3030609@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 03/07/13 15:03, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 05:20 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 03/07/13 09:18, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>>> More and more platforms are now using devicetree.
>>> Ideally the platform code contains only one function "of_platform_populate".
>>> My idea is to make a generic architecture (mach-dt) with the call then add support
>>> for compatible subarchitectures as they become available in "compatible"-property.
>>> Your opinion?
>>
>> Well, my (admittedly partial) opinion is that mach-virt is an incredibly
>> nicer sounding name, 'specially as you can mistype it as mach-triv.
> 
> As mentioned before, I disagree and would love to see the the
> virtualization-specific name replaced by something more suitably generic.

I think you're missing the point. The right fix would to remove it
entirely and make it the basic default. There are patches for that already.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...