On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 08:17:03PM -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>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....
It's just the unit-name that should be generic, not the compatible. The
only thing unit-name is used for is path lookup and distinguishing between
similar hardware units. I don't think either is a problem in this case.
josh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
