Timur Tabi wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe
node would look bad to me.
You don't think it weird to have one QE node reference data from another QE
node, or that the DTS implies that the firmware belongs to one QE more than it
belongs to the other?
It is certainly not symmetric.
Putting the firmware blob somewhere completely unrelated to either node
maintains the symmetry between the two qe nodes, but only weakly
captures the relationship between the firmware blob and the qe nodes.
It is then necessary to invoke a strong naming convention for the
firmware blob, because you don't have the hierarchy to do the name space
disambiguation for you.
As I see it, the three possibilities, and their disadvantages, are:
a) Firmware blob in some random place - requires strong naming of either
firmware blob property or node containing it.
b) Firmware blob within first qe node - asymmetric.
c) Firmware blob in new parent of both qe nodes - requires introduction
of otherwise-unneeded hierarchy level.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
