On 12/17/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When the driver no longer requires the port number, it's easy to drop. > Until then, I'll keep it in. > > Also, I'm not so sure that moving to completely generic names is really > worth the effort... All the 'semantically' interesting' information is > already in the device tree somewhere else. In the limit, the node name > could just be a randomly generated string. So now we have a matter of > taste: what is the right amount of detail to put in so that someone who > looks at the tree can easily understand what's going on, but not be > overwhelmed?
True, but part of 'taste' is following the established OF conventions such as the generic names ( http://playground.sun.com/1275/practice/ ). Those conventions come directly from the lessons learned by real open firmware over the years. It's okay to break convention; but only if you've got a *damn* *good* reason for doing so. :-) > The xilinx ip name seems to usually do that almost as well as > a 'generic name'. Anyway, you proved me wrong last time after a bunch of > mulling it over, so maybe I'll just take your word for it and do it that > way. :) heh, And a big reason I'm arguing it is David, Segher and others took me to task for making the same mistakes. :-) > In other news, my computer seems to have died this morning, so productivity > may be low. :) Fun. :-( 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
