On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Jason Kridner wrote:

quoted

I very much like this approach. ?I believed the ability to use the die
ID to get a unique code was reasonable approach and that is why I
didn't get an EEPROM put onto the BeagleBoard, though Gerald is
looking at adding one on a future revision because the lack of one
wasn't well received. ?Minor questions below.

If this code had been available and/or the procedure well documented
before then I believe the reception would have been better.

Understood.  Live and learn and try not to repeat the same mistakes.
Hopefully others pick up on this one.

quoted

The use of the OMAP die id below makes this OMAP specific and the list
referenced below of the devices to be referenced makes it Panda
specific. ?Is there a way to make the list board specific, but to make
these functions that will be used across many OMAP platforms reusable?
?I believe that this current code will result in a lot of
cut-and-paste. ?My preference is that this is accepted and that we
make this more general when we add this to other OMAP platforms, but
it'd be great to capture your suggestions on how to do so before those
cut-and-paste patch sets start coming in.

It is true that this might get copied. ?But as I suggested to Andy, it
is best to wait and see how often this happens before generalizing the
approach. ?Consolidation is easier when you can see what is actually
common and what is board specific. ?Otherwise it is easy to
fall into the over-engineering trap.

Makes sense.  I hope to see this patch accepted for Panda quickly and
we can follow Andy's advice on how to make it more general in the
future as we wee how people use/need it.

Nicolas