On 12/16/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:43:33PM -0800, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > This now better describes what the UBoot device tree generator actually > > does. In particular: > > > > 1) Nodes have a label derived from the device name, and a node name > > derived from the device type. > > 2) Usage of compound nodes (representing more than one device in the same > > IP) which actually works. This requires having a valid compatible node, > > and all the other things that a bus normally has. I've chosen > > 'xlnx,compound' as the bus name to describe these compound nodes. > > I'm not sure I like this xlnx,compound business, although maybe it's > the best you can do.
I'd prefer something like "xlnx,<ip-name>-group". "xlnx,compound" is a very bad idea because it will be reused for very different types of devices. What happens when a device appears that has both per-instance properties and 'top level' registers accessed by both devices? > > > 3) Uartlite requires a port-number property for the console to work. > > Why? In general we try to avoid magical sequence numbers - cell-index > should *only* be used when it's needed to index or program some shared > register. Aliases is probably the correct construct for this. port-number was a bad idea and I never should have gone that direction. 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
