>> Nothing in a flat device tree should ever define a device_type, except
>> perhaps for compatibility with legacy kernel code.
>
> This is not necessarily true. As Segher says, device_type originally
> indicated the OF programming model for a device. However, we've
> extended the notion for the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:50:02PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> + Required properties:
> >>> + - device_type : should be "usb".
> >> No device_type please. The published USB binding doesn't define
> >> one on purpose.
> >
> > Could you please, explain why?
> > Sorry, I don't think I ge
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
+ Required properties:
+ - device_type : should be "usb".
>>> No device_type please. The published USB binding doesn't define
>>> one on purpose.
>>
>> Could you please, explain why?
>> Sorry, I don't think I get the concept of device description here.
>
> "d
>>> + Required properties:
>>> + - device_type : should be "usb".
>> No device_type please. The published USB binding doesn't define
>> one on purpose.
>
> Could you please, explain why?
> Sorry, I don't think I get the concept of device description here.
"device_type" is meant to be used only
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> + l) USB EHCI controllers
>> +
>> + Required properties:
>> + - device_type : should be "usb".
>
> No device_type please. The published USB binding doesn't define
> one on purpose.
>
Could you please, explain why?
Sorry, I don't think I get the concept of device
> + l) USB EHCI controllers
> +
> + Required properties:
> + - device_type : should be "usb".
No device_type please. The published USB binding doesn't define
one on purpose.
> + - compatible : should be "ehci".
Just "ehci" isn't enough -- compare to OHCI, which is the name for
a kind of USB
