Grant Likely wrote:
Oh, and BTW, this is *exactly* why I advocate being explicit about what part the node describes instead of depending on some generic name. ie. "fsl,p4080-mpic" instead of "chrp,open-pic". So that you can deal with part specific oddities and so you can create new bindings when necessary. Nodes can still put backwards compatible entries in the compatible list after the specific device when appropriate so that existing drivers can still bind to them.
I fully agree that there should be a more specific compatible -- this doesn't replace that (indeed, it's required to interpret the implementation-specific sections of the specifier). The question is whether we could still include chrp,open-pic in the compatible list if there are additional bits set in the interrupt specifier.
-Scott _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
