james wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:34:55AM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > On 09/29/2011 03:46 AM, James Cameron wrote: > > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:24:06PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > >>'/ofw' has been removed on the XOs now. We need to refine the > > >>check if the machine is an XO in order to display the > > >>information accordingly. > > > > > >Nak. compatible is the more correct property in device-tree to use for > > >identifying XO-1.75, and is the property that OpenFirmware plans to > > >ensure is correct. > > > > > > > So on 1.75 /proc/device-tree/compatible instead of > > /proc/device-tree/banner-name, right? > > That was my understanding. Discussion I had was with Paul Fox on 16th > August, and had to do with keymap rules and the need to not parse the > text, but rather support equivalence checking. It was first available > in Q4B08. > > > olpc-utils [1] should be updated then accordingly as well, I presume? > > I don't know. b1cb93b6d seems to predate the discussion I had. If it > isn't changing, then you may as well duplicate it and have two copies to > maintain. > > > Would be great to use the same checks in both places, your patch > > seem to differ in a few more places. > > I think it would be better to have checks in one place, and there's an > olpc-hwinfo script available that could be used instead now. Could you > use that? Much less Sugar code then.
yes, it would be much better to centralize this -- we'll certainly be going through this again in the future. please use olpc-hwinfo from sugar, if possible. (i'm surprised /proc/device-tree/compatible isn't being used in olpc-utils. presumably it wasn't available yet.) paul =--------------------- paul fox, p...@laptop.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel