Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 09/10] xen: arm: update multiboot device tree bindings.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 13:34 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> From f9e80ead57b9f739c3041fe5abc4b23c8f0eb18f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:16:31 +0100
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] xen: arm: document boot module compatibility based on
> >>>  ordering
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt |    8 +++++++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt 
> >>> b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> index d967061..ad98bf3 100644
> >>> --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt
> >>> @@ -23,7 +23,13 @@ Each node contains the following properties:
> >>>   compatible string (if one applies) in addition to the generic
> >>>   string (which must always be present).
> >>>  
> >>> -        Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings
> >>> + Xen will assume that the first module which lacks a more
> >>
> >> With this change, it's not clear that Xen 4.4 doesn't support boot
> >> module ordering. I would precise Xen 4.5 and onwards.
> > 
> > Note that a paragraph further down still reads:
> >     For compatibility with Xen 4.4 the more specific "xen,linux-*"
> >     names are non-optional and must be included.
> 
> Oh right, I forgot there was a paragraph about it.
> 
> So this change looks good to me.

May I take that as an Ack?



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