On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley <w...@firmworks.com> wrote: > It seems to me that there are plausible use cases for both direct-inclusion > and indirection. I don't see any real problems with either, so I would vote > for specifying both alternatives.
Ugh. Then this one driver would need to implement both binding for little, if any, actual benefit. I'm sure we can come to an agreement on one method if the firmware absolutely has to be in the tree. Personally, my vote lies with direct-inclusion. However, if indirection is used, then I think it would be wise to define where data-only nodes like this should live. Under /chosen perhaps? It wouldn't be good to place it somewhere where it will be confused for an actual device node. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
