On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 01:09 +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> >>> We need it as it currently doesn't match with the default bus ids. >>> >> >>> >>> Should I introduce a .type property matching any of those above >>> >>> in the >>> >>> soc node, and get rid of the explicit bus probe? >>> >> >>> >> You don't need any fake bus as far as I can see, just probe the >>> >> devices >>> >> you want. >>> > >>> > But it's way easier to let the bus probe do it for us. I don't see >>> > the win here. >>> >>> As long as this doesn't leak into the device tree in any way, I don't >>> care. How's that? :-) >> >> I still like having the node that encloses all the devices. Not sure >> why, but I like it :-) > > I do to. It documents that all these things are enclosed in a single > package and provides grouping device nodes with nodes describing > shared registers and the like.
And for the same reason I keep all my socks in the same drawer. :-) g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
