On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:45:53 +0400 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbarysh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see your point. I just wasn't thinking too much about ot-of-tree trees. > My thought was that if someone updates the kernel, he can also update the dtb. Sometimes there are firmware dependencies that make that difficult. And even if it's just user laziness/forgetfulness, that still translates to extra support requests. > Could you please update the lbc.txt suggesting the compatibility > with simple-bus for lbc? Or you thing that it would be wrong? > > I think we should define compatibility list as "fsl,mpcXXXX-localbus", > "fsl,pqXXXXX-localbus", "simple-bus", noting that by default new > platforms/boards should only use "simple-bus" internally. Does this > look reasonable for you? I can then try to provide a patch. I'm OK with saying that localbus nodes should have simple-bus in new trees, and defining canonical compatible values (chips with eLBC should be "fsl,XXXX-elbc", "fsl,elbc", "simple-bus"). I'm not sure what you mean by "should only use simple-bus internally", especially in the context of the binding. > What do you suggest/prefer? To add .name="localbus" to generic code > or to have board-specific hooks (like one for mpc834xemitx)? Just add localbus to the generic table. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
