On 3 December 2015 4:36:03 pm ACDT, Stewart Smith <stew...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > >> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 15:45 +1100, Stewart Smith wrote: >> >>> Long ago, only in the lab, there was OPALv1 and OPALv2. Now there is >>> just OPALv3, with nobody ever expecting anything on pre-OPALv3 to >>> be cared about or supported by mainline kernels. >>> >>> So, let's remove FW_FEATURE_OPAL and instead use FW_FEATURE_OPALv3 >>> exclusively. >> >> It would be less churn if we did the reverse, ie. removed v3 and just >used >> FW_FEATURE_OPAL. It would also read better as v3 is the one and only >version we >> care about, so having it called out everywhere is superfluous. >> >> Or is there a good reason I missed? > >excessive caution?
Yeah fair enough. >I'll send a V2 patchset doing the reverse, leaving FW_FEATURE_OPAL. Thanks. cheers -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
