From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: Unhandled LM90 irq 308 on Dalmore? Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:42:24 -0700 Message-ID: <52CB0720.1030900@wwwdotorg.org> References: <52B2C5AD.5080405@nvidia.com> <20131219114500.1b1ea0b7@endymion.delvare> <52B3B679.20206@nvidia.com> <52B46FD2.1030409@wwwdotorg.org> <52B52B64.5020304@nvidia.com> <52CB0048.5040304@wwwdotorg.org> <20140106194052.GA27078@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140106194052.GA27078-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Paul Walmsley , Wei Ni , Jean Delvare , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , LM Sensors List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 01/06/2014 12:40 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:13:12PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 12/20/2013 10:47 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >>> >>> On 12/20/2013 08:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> ... >>>> Note that upstream Linux *only* supports Dalmore A04, and no other >>>> version. If you have a different board revision, it's not expected to >>>> work with upstream. IIRC, Eric Brower volunteered to track down the >>>> correct board revision for people working on upstream. >>> >>> Indeed, that's probably the problem, then >>> >>> It would be good if this was documented somewhere in the upstream kernel >>> tree. >> >> I'll send a patch to document that in the DTS file. >> >>> And even better if the kernel was able to read the Dalmore EEPROM >>> and print out a warning upon kernel boot... >> >> That would be painful, since it'd be board-specific code that isn't >> really coupled with a specific piece of HW for which there's a driver. >> I'd rather avoid that kind of thing. >> > Another option might be for someone to add support for other board revisions, > and create appropriate dts files. We specifically decided not to support other board revisions to reduce the support load. > On a side note, if the board revisions are incompatible to each other, > shouldn't the 'compatible' property be different ? Just wondering ... Yes, if we did end up supporting other board revisions, we'd use different compatible properties to differentiate them.