On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dan Malek <ppc6...@digitaldans.com> wrote: > > Hi Grant. > > On Jun 11, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> I've been doing a bit of work on some introductory level documentation >> of the flattened device tree. > > Wow, I feel empowered to create device trees now :-) > Seriously, I never understood this well and this is a > great document.
Hey, thanks! That's a fantastic compliment! > I have one source of confusion. Your first Initial structure > example uses 'compatible' to describe the machine, the > paragraph below then mentions the 'model' property, > and all subsequent examples use model. > > Does this mean if I use just the single line in the dts, > using 'compatible' implies the ARM machine ID? If I > have more description I use 'model'? No, that is just a reflection of a late change I made to the document. It should be compatible all the way down. I was trying to keep things simple because on a lot of boards both compatible and model properties will exist in the root node. I started writing with model, and then changed it last minute without fixing everything up which is why the document was confusing. I've fixed it now if you want to take a look. I also changed the property in the cpu nodes from model to compatible so that the exact CPU version can be specified. This isn't actually in any spec anywhere, but I need something to properly identify the different ARM cores. Mitch, I know you were working on a draft ARM binding a while ago, have you resurrected it at all? How do you think the core should be identified? Cheers, g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
