Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/10] xen: arm: update multiboot device tree bindings.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:56 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt |   24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt 
> > b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > index bfb8d01..92af119 100644
> > --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> > @@ -8,15 +8,27 @@ Each node contains the following properties:
> >  
> >  - compatible
> >  
> > -   Must be:
> > +   Must always include at least:
> >  
> > -           "xen,<type>", "xen,multiboot-module"
> > +           "multiboot,module"
> 
> As it stands this conflicts with the statement below that we are
> compatible with Xen 4.4: the old multiboot compatible strings didn't
> include "multiboot,module".
> You might want to reword it.

I'm not sure what you mean or I would. 

I don't think the doc says that we are compatible with Xen 4.4, it says
that in order to be compatible with Xen 4.4 the user should... Is that
what I need to clarify perhaps?

> > -   where <type> must be one of:
> > +   Optionally a more specific compatible string may be used in
> > +   addition to the above. One of:
> 
> We should probably recommend the usage of a more specific string in
> addition to "multiboot,module".

"Normally a more specific compatible string should be used in addition
to the above" perhaps?

At some point I'd like to see us doing more probing of magic numbers
(e.g. x86 does this for the XSM policy).

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel