From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e1.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231EDDF1A8 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:35:09 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:35:00 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] powerpc/44x: Add PowerPC 44x simple platform support Message-ID: <20080820133500.1b15fb0a@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <496103659f7b122a8301703b055ef4c6bd3092af.1219160188.git.jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200808201533.22258.arnd@arndb.de> <1219243548.26429.25.camel@jdub.homelinux.org> <20080820131124.05cfee9f@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Arnd@ozlabs.org, Bergmann List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:19:02 -0700 Roland Dreier wrote: > > Except that logically doesn't make much sense. Why would you have a > > list of mpc52xx and 44x boards together? They require completely > > different kernels because the MMU and drive set is entirely different. > > > > Or am I totally missing what you are saying? > > Yeah, I wasn't clear -- I meant to add a new helper like > of_flat_dt_is_compatible_list() (not sure of the name) that takes a node > and a NULL-terminated array of strings, and then mpc5200_simple_probe() > can become a one-liner, along with mpc5121_generic_probe(), > tqm85xx_probe(), ppc44x_probe(), etc. Ah, I see. I worry about doing that though. I don't want to give people the impression that these boards are "of" compatible. I want it to be more "this file supports these explicit platforms and makes no claim on compatibility between them". josh