Re: RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifier definition

[Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 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.

My vote is no.

g.


-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.