Hi, On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > established. > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
Sounds good to me, even though it doesn't really address the original OF separation comment. :) Maybe it's enough to document the difference between the linux-specific flat device tree bindings and classic 1275-style bindings in the top readme in that directory. Either way, it's not worth arguing over, your suggestion is good enough. > > Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor > > boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested > > better. > > I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that > don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind). > Other than that, the functional partitioning > lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device > type and follow up with device specific properties. Yep, it could always be added down the road in case it's needed. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
