Jon Smirl wrote: > On 11/8/07, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jon Smirl wrote: >>> No one has answered this yet. It makes no sense at all to mix use of >>> the vendor prefix on some compatible entries and not on others. The >>> syntax of compatible entries needs to be consistent. >> Right, the vendor prefix should always be used. Not all of the existing >> trees are perfect, however, so sometimes the code needs to stay >> compatible, especially when the device tree is difficult to change. > > A bunch of patches are going to have to go into the kernel. Code > expecting tree attributes without vendor prefixes is all over the > kernel.
It's just nonstandard properties that need it, not all of them. > All of the dts file need to be patched up, etc. I don't think *all* the dts files have problems... > As far as I know the only dts using vendor prefixes in the compatible > attributes is 5200lite one for the gpt entries. Everything else will > need to be changed. Look a little harder. Many of the Freescale boards/devices do it right -- and yes, we need to fix the ones that don't. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
