On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Scott Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
My vote is no. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
