[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120812064803.GA5950@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:48:03 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/dt: use linear irq domain for ioapic(s).
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Thierry Reding | 2012-08-08 14:07:37 [+0200]:
>
> >With that in place, the driver code can match on "intel,hpet" to catch
> >all implementations and use the more specific entries if quirks are
> >required for the specific hardware.
>
> from http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/16/350:
>
> |"intel,ioapic" is probably too generic and can be dropped. Newer
> |devices can claim compatibility with "intel,ioapic-ce4100" if they are
> |indeed compatible so that device drivers don't need to be modified.
> |It is better to anchor compatible values to real implementations that
> |try to come up with 'generic' or wildcard strings. Ditto through the
> |rest of the file.
Oh well. I've seen just the opposite used on ARM, where you start from a
generic implementation and compatible value and use more specific
compatible values for device-specific quirks.
But okay, the hardware that I use seems to work fine anyway, so I'll
just leave it as-is.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists