RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifier definition
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Thu Jan 14 05:06:14 EST 2010
Grant Likely wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, this is *exactly* why I advocate being explicit about
> what part the node describes instead of depending on some generic
> name. ie. "fsl,p4080-mpic" instead of "chrp,open-pic". So that you
> can deal with part specific oddities and so you can create new
> bindings when necessary. Nodes can still put backwards compatible
> entries in the compatible list after the specific device when
> appropriate so that existing drivers can still bind to them.
I fully agree that there should be a more specific compatible -- this
doesn't replace that (indeed, it's required to interpret the
implementation-specific sections of the specifier). The question is
whether we could still include chrp,open-pic in the compatible list if
there are additional bits set in the interrupt specifier.
-Scott
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list