>>> - device_type = "cpm"; >>> - model = "CPM2"; >>> + compatible = "fsl,mpc8272-cpm", "fsl,cpm2", "fsl,cpm"; >> >> Does 'fsl,cpm' really mean anything useful? > > Yes. It's can't be used on its own to show the complete programming > model,
So please remove it. > but there are lots of common things that it does indicate. These common things can be detected differently; if all else fails, just look for a few different "compatible" entries. > The CPM binding is changed in so many other ways that are much > harder to > make backward compatible that I don't really see much point in > doing so > here. > >> Also, take a look at QE it has a similar concept. > > It'd be nice to extend this binding to include QE (and at some point > down the road, merge the code)... I just didn't have time this > time around. If you think you'll have to seriously revise the binding again, please mark that clearly in the documentation (there _is_ documentation, right?), so no one can complain if you break compatibility later. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
