Re: Handling of modular boards

From: Mark Brown
Date: Wed May 09 2012 - 13:13:05 EST

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:26:54PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Thanks for getting the discussion started. I've seen the same issue come
> > up for arch/arm/mach-ux500/board-mop500*uib.c and for the beaglebone.
> > I'm sure there are many more, but we should make sure that everyone
> > of these can live with whatever we come up with.

> The same issue sort of comes up with any system that uses the idiom
> to have a few GPIO lines indicate in a binary code what version of the
> board we're dealing with and what devices are thus on it, right?

> We have this issue for the U9540 reference design and potentially
> on the Snowball as well.

Yes, I think that's basically the same problem.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature