From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3B7DDFB5 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:28:26 +1000 (EST) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so434063pyi.27 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Board level compatibility matching From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org In-Reply-To: <20080801080632.35edcb04@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <20080801025439.GB5008@yookeroo.seuss> <20080801032533.GB6595@secretlab.ca> <1217564739.11188.482.camel@pasglop> <20080801080632.35edcb04@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:28:21 -0400 Message-Id: <1217593701.2328.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: Josh Boyer Cc: linuxppc-dev , devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org Reply-To: jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 08:06 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:25:39 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > About this whole generic board mumbo-jumbo: not happening. It's a pipe > > dream, it doesn't work, and it leads to the sort of mess we have in chrp > > where we end up having hacks to identify what exact sort of chrp we have > > and do things differently etc... > > > > NOT HAPPENING. > > > > Now, there are two approaches here that are possible: > > > > - Your board is really pretty much exactly the same as board XXX, > > except maybe you have a different flash size or such, and the support > > for board XXX can cope perfectly with it simply due to the device-tree > > the right information. > > > > If that happens to be the case, make your board compatible with board > > XXX. Make that entry -second- in your compatible list, because one day > > you'll figure out that there -is- indeed a difference and I don't want > > to see board XXX code start to grow code to recognise your other board > > and work around the difference. So at that stage, copy board XXX.c file > > and start over with your own board support that matches on your first > > compatible propery entry. > > 44x does this today for a small number of boards. The "issue", if > there really is one, is that there's no clear definition on what is > acceptable to be called "compatible". If _Linux_ platform support for > board FOO Ignore that last line. Emailing before coffee is considered dangerous. josh