From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail8.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.165]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PQxnJ-0000Vs-Kf for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:53:34 +0000 From: Marc Reilly Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:53:20 +1100 References: <1291952264-3363-1-git-send-email-marc@cpdesign.com.au> <20101210064359.GD19897@game.jcrosoft.org> In-Reply-To: <20101210064359.GD19897@game.jcrosoft.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201012101853.20192.marc@cpdesign.com.au> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: update mach-types To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi, > PLwase specify against which kernel It's directly from http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ To be honest, I didn't even think about needing to match up against a specific version of the kernel, but I guess it does deserve consideration. >From my understanding, the machine numbers are reserved forever and there is a 1:1 correspondence between the mach number and the device itself. It's only the label that may change. So this patch would be bad if someone has changed their machine name, but hasn't changed their code within barebox. I'll leave my thinking there because it's late friday arvo, and smarter minds have probably thought this one out before. :) Otherwise, would it be better if I just submitted a "one liner" patch which just adds my new machine? Cheers, Marc _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox