* Grant Likely <[email protected]> [110614 15:02]: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 14 June 2011 23:21:52 Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >> Otherwise, if the revision number is effectively non probable, then I > >> would guess it is the device tree's purpose to carry that information > >> somehow, right? Maybe this can be appended to the board name string? > > > > That's what I meant with adding it to "compatible", which is a list of > > strings with varying degrees of detailed information, e.g. > > > > ti,omap7 > > ti,omap7-squirrelboard > > ti,omap7-squirrelboard-v3 > > ti,omap7-squirrelboard-v3.17b > > > > You can match the list against a specific revision or a less specific > > identifier if you just want to know whether you are on a squirrelboard > > or a hamsterboard. > > Yes, that's generally the right way to handle it. In practice I've > not seen many cases where it is really required, but it doesn't hurt > if somebody wants to include it in the DT for their board.
Appending the ATAG_REVISION to "compatible" and also setting system_rev to ATAG_REVISION like we already do should work. Just to clarify things abit: We just can't generate .dts files for all existing hardware. It would require dumping out system_rev and other ATAGs on tens or hundeds of pieces of hardware. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
