[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 09/10] xen: arm: update multiboot device tree bindings.
On 07/24/2014 03:30 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > 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? I though have acked it on a previous mail... Anyway: Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |