On 03/02/2011 04:46 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

On 03/01/2011 07:35 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:

quoted

On 03/02/2011 04:21 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

On 03/01/2011 07:11 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:

quoted

On 03/02/2011 03:55 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

On 03/01/2011 06:41 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:

quoted

On 03/02/2011 03:23 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

<snip>

quoted

The only real objection I have to adding the SoC family information is
basically to discourage it being abused by userspace. I can see it being
useful in debug situations, but I can also see stupid userspace
applications explicitly testing for some particular SoC, rather than
more correctly (IMHO) checking for presence of certain drivers etc.

True, but so many other things could be misused by stupid userspace
programs. When there are legitimate usecases, I think we shouldn't
prevent them just because we think a stupid userspace program could
misuse it.

Again, although you might not be gung-ho about this, I think I have at
least made you indifferent/mildly supportive to adding socinfo. If you
don't mind, I would like to wait for others to chime in before
continuing this discussion.

Agreed.

In general I am in support of having the SoC information exposed
somewhere. I think we just want to be careful that it doesn't become a
dumping ground for anything and everything SoC related whether the
information is useful or not. I think each piece of exposed information
should have a genuine use case, not just "because we can".

~Ryan

-- 
Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre

Ryan Mallon         		5 Amuri Park, 404 Barbadoes St
ryan at bluewatersys.com         	PO Box 13 889, Christchurch 8013
http://www.bluewatersys.com	New Zealand
Phone: +64 3 3779127		Freecall: Australia 1800 148 751
Fax:   +64 3 3779135			  USA 1800 261 2934