On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:11:28PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 04:59:42PM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:49:00PM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote: > > > From: Mark A. Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Remove several unused (or software config only) properties. > > > Rename marvel node to "soc". Technically, it's not an SOC, > > > but its organization is the same as an SOC. Also, rename the > > > "block-index" property to "cell-index" to conform to current > > > practice. > > > > I see this rename as purely misleading. It isn't an soc, so it shouldn't > > be named as such. Call it system-controller or something. Pretty much > > any other name is better. :-) > > I agree. system-controller, host-bridge, north-bridge, maybe, but not > soc. With current conventions, the node name is primarily for the > benefit of human readers, so if it misleads it has failed entirely in > its purpose.
I'm convinced. I'll change it to system-controller. However, I can't resist pointing out that in the existing devtrees with a "soc" node, the name is also misleading. That node doesn't refer to the SOC itself, but to the part of the SOC containing the peripherals. Whether the system is implemented on one or two chips is an implementation detail irrelevant to the drivers or device tree. -Dale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
