On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:10AM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote:
> >> We ran ito the same issue.
> >> We did option 3, as it was efinetly the easiest,
> >
> > I think this is the best option in principle.
> >
> >> here is the sram entry in our dts:
> >
> > Except that your implementation of it is not good.
> >
> > You're relying on the old obsolete flash binding with the "probe-type"
> > field. The solution should be adapted to the new approach which uses
> > values in the "compatible" field to indicate various sorts of flash
> > device.
>
> Yea, I know. But it was the easiest way of doing it at the time we did
> our port....
> In a timecrunch, easier is sometimes better than correct. :)
Well sure, but don't expect others to be swayed by your time pressure.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
