Re: Subnodes of vendor-added nodes
From: Grant Likely <hidden>
Date: 2011-09-20 05:01:31
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:37:35PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote:quoted
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?If the subnodes and properties in question have the semantics of existing nodes or properties, just in the context of the new vendor node, then no, you can use the existing names. If they're newly defined nodes and properties with their own new semantics, then, yes, they should have the vendor prefix. There is some grey area here. IBM, for example, it its OF implementations has heaps of "ibm,XXX" properties for things which were not defined at the time the old OF working group stopped doing much of anything. Some of these are truly vendor specific and deserve the prefix, others are actually pretty general in concept and it would have been nice in some ways to define new general bindings for them without the vendor prefixes.
Hmmm, good point. It would be a good idea to use the prefix for the properties of the sub nodes (assuming they aren't truly generic). The node names should be fine without however. g.