On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > These changes expect boards only to ever use one chiprev and > > product variant, which seems like a dubious model to impose > > on the board manufacturing side ... which may need to shift > > to lower cost or bugfixed versions over time, ideally without > > coupling such changes to new software releases. > > Agreed but the support isn't there in the old code, not required > yet, and can be handled pretty easily with the changes mentioned > above so I'd still like to get rid of id.c. How fiercely do you > object to that?
Not fiercely at all, I just thought it was worth noting this changed assumption. The support that's there isn't really used yet. At some level it comes down to how much discipline TI will be adopting in its design processes. DaVinci has seemed to produce a bit less variability in critical details than OMAP ... I'd guess in part because the design teams started with more of a "catalog chips" model, and partly because of less bleeding-edge tech. - Dave _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
