On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:19:44PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> But finding nodes that meet a criteria *is* what compatible is for and >> there is precedence for it. All u-boot platforms are finding the node >> by path right now, and so all of them need to be changed. Changing >> them to find by compatible that is set per-board or per-SoC makes >> complete sense to me. > > It is ridiculous to have to duplicate code (or create a table, or > whatever) just so it can search for mpc8536-foo, mpc8544-foo, > mpc8548-foo, etc -- and in the case of the SoC, it's *not* fully > compatible, so we *can't* pick one as the "default" -- but it's > compatible for the purposes of the code in question. > > I figured an alias would attract fewer flames than a compatible of > "fsl,immr" (though I'm fine with it -- it's specifying compatibility of > device tree binding, not of the hardware). > > And no, they're not all finding it by path now -- there's a lot of use > of device_type "soc", which is what we're trying to avoid by introducing > this alias. The bootwrapper is also affected.
FWIW, recent u-boot also looks for "fsl,soc" compatible entry. -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
