[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160607124650.1e69c658@jclayton-pc>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:46:50 -0700
From: Joshua Clayton <stillcompiling@...il.com>
To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de,
kernel@...gutronix.de, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: imx6: tag boards that have the HW
workaround for ERR006687
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 10:25:06 +0200
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2016, 17:17 +0100 schrieb Russell King - ARM
> Linux:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
> > > phy-reset-gpios = <&gpio3 31 0>;
> > > interrupts-extended = <&gpio1 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > <&intc 0 119 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > > + fsl,err006687-war-present;
> >
Why can't we just have the quirk detect the interrupts-extended
property, which is not present on boards without the workaround.
Wouldn't that be better? No dts change needed.
> > war? Any reason not to spell it out, or use the more natural
> > abbreviation "wa"?
> >
> Apparently I've read too many documents where WAR is the abbreviation
> for workaround, so it felt completely natural to me. I agree that it
> would make sense to just spell it out to avoid any confusion.
>
> Regards,
> Lucas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists