On 11/18/2011 12:49 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39:14AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

Peter De Schrijver wrote at Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:19 AM:

quoted

This patch adds the initial device tree for tegra30

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/tegra.txt

...

quoted

+* harmony: tegra20 based development board
+Required root node properties:
+ - compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20";
+
+* seaboard: tegra20 based clamshell reference design
+Required root node properties:
+ - compatible = "nvidia,seaboard", "nvidia,tegra20";

Do we really want to list all the board names here? In the future, there
could be tens or hundreds. I would argue that we should just document
nvidia,tegra20 and nvidia,tegra30.

Agreed.

It's not really any different than mach-types which does have every
board in it.

I think if a board requires a new dts, then it needs a unique name.

quoted

At a later point, we should fix board-dt.c to solely look for those
compatible values, although this will have to wait until the pinmux DT
bindings are present. Then, the kernel won't care about the board names.

Exactly.

That is perfectly acceptable, but you should still have the option to do
something specific for any given board.

Rob