From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:49:44 -0700 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <520AC1FE.1030600@zytor.com> References: <20130725175702.GC22291@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1999586.84BnWE5EUh@thinkpad> <20130731191209.GA8027@netboy> <1409617.9untvfnOTJ@flatron> <20130731200017.GC8027@netboy> <20130731201457.GA24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130731204817.GC24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20130802035027.GA19115@voom.redhat.com> <520AC1FE.1030600@zytor.com> Message-ID: <520AE238.4030304@roeck-us.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/13/2013 04:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/01/2013 08:50 PM, David Gibson wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com >>> wrote: >> [snip] >>> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to >>> get rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of >>> it, why should ARM? >> >> Sure x86 has board specific code. It's just that x86 basically >> only has one board - PC. >> > > That is one aspect (hardware standardization)... but it is more to it > than that. > I have to deal with lots of embedded / non-PC x86 based systems. Worst one I encountered so far was a board where the VGA memory space was re-used for an eeprom. The upcoming next generation hardware I'll have to support is so far off-standard that I'll probably have to define a new platform type (similar to OLPC or CE4100). No, it is not all PC. Not anymore. Intel has started to sell into the embedded space, where PC compatibility is not a requirement. Guenter