On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:19:02 -0700 Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except that logically doesn't make much sense. Why would you have a > > list of mpc52xx and 44x boards together? They require completely > > different kernels because the MMU and drive set is entirely different. > > > > Or am I totally missing what you are saying? > > Yeah, I wasn't clear -- I meant to add a new helper like > of_flat_dt_is_compatible_list() (not sure of the name) that takes a node > and a NULL-terminated array of strings, and then mpc5200_simple_probe() > can become a one-liner, along with mpc5121_generic_probe(), > tqm85xx_probe(), ppc44x_probe(), etc. Ah, I see. I worry about doing that though. I don't want to give people the impression that these boards are "of" compatible. I want it to be more "this file supports these explicit platforms and makes no claim on compatibility between them". josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
