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

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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?

The doc says "For compatibility with Xen 4.4 the following are also
supported". From that I assumed that we are compatible with Xen 4.4....


> > > - 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?

That's good. Or maybe "A more specific compatible string can and should
be used in addition to the above".


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

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