On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > > > 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? > > It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting > *without* of" to "of *"...
Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little group think it should be something else. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
