On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 08:06 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:25:39 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > About this whole generic board mumbo-jumbo: not happening. It's a pipe > > dream, it doesn't work, and it leads to the sort of mess we have in chrp > > where we end up having hacks to identify what exact sort of chrp we have > > and do things differently etc... > > > > NOT HAPPENING. > > > > Now, there are two approaches here that are possible: > > > > - Your board is really pretty much exactly the same as board XXX, > > except maybe you have a different flash size or such, and the support > > for board XXX can cope perfectly with it simply due to the device-tree > > the right information. > > > > If that happens to be the case, make your board compatible with board > > XXX. Make that entry -second- in your compatible list, because one day > > you'll figure out that there -is- indeed a difference and I don't want > > to see board XXX code start to grow code to recognise your other board > > and work around the difference. So at that stage, copy board XXX.c file > > and start over with your own board support that matches on your first > > compatible propery entry. > > 44x does this today for a small number of boards. The "issue", if > there really is one, is that there's no clear definition on what is > acceptable to be called "compatible". If _Linux_ platform support for > board FOO
Ignore that last line. Emailing before coffee is considered dangerous. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
