From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6B1DDEE3 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:23:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070424.212330.82514412.davem@davemloft.net> To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Consolidate of_device_is_compatible From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1177459165.14873.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070424223245.78f4fdfb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20070424223812.2842f3f2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1177459165.14873.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:59:24 +1000 > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 22:38 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > The only difference here is that Sparc uses strncmp to match compatibility > > names while PowerPC uses strncasecmp. > > We should settle for a single implementation. In theory, strncmp would > be the way to go but there have been "bugs" here or there, especially in > Apple DTs, that made me use strncasecmp instead in the past. > > Dave, what do you reckon ? I should try to find out the bogus machines > and add workarounds in the various drivers etc... instead or we can just > go common on strncasecmp ? I think strncasecmp is the safest thing to start with.