On 11/8/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: > > No one has answered this yet. It makes no sense at all to mix use of > > the vendor prefix on some compatible entries and not on others. The > > syntax of compatible entries needs to be consistent. > > Right, the vendor prefix should always be used. Not all of the existing > trees are perfect, however, so sometimes the code needs to stay > compatible, especially when the device tree is difficult to change.
A bunch of patches are going to have to go into the kernel. Code expecting tree attributes without vendor prefixes is all over the kernel. All of the dts file need to be patched up, etc. As far as I know the only dts using vendor prefixes in the compatible attributes is 5200lite one for the gpt entries. Everything else will need to be changed. > > -Scott > -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
