On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:00:18 -0500
"Scott Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:19:43PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > +
> > > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >
> > Not sure if we shouldn't use
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >
> > here. This is the way it is already done in warp.dts.
>
> We shouldn't. Node names are supposed to be generic:
> http://playground.sun.com/1275/practice/gnames/gnamv14a.html
Damn. Where were you a year ago when I first introduced this? ;)
And if it is really supposed to be generic, would [EMAIL PROTECTED] be a
better name since this is basically a generic temperature chip?
Now that the i2c driver is a full of platform driver, I think I
can change the name with no repercussions. So I can live with whatever
decision is made. Can't do anything about the systems that are out in
the field though....
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
