Re: Subnodes of vendor-added nodes

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, David VomLehn [off-list ref] wrote:

I know the device tree has a protocol for vendors to extend the types of nodes without
causing namespace collisions, e.g. acme,explosives. Do subnodes and properties of the
extended nodes also need the leading <vendor> and comma?

Nope; haven't done that so far.  There isn't the same threat of
namespace conflict there because deciding by-name what to do with a
node is generally discouraged.  There are cases where it is
appropriate, (ie. /chosen and /cpus), but generally nodes should be
named according to the "generic names" recommended practice.

g.