On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:52:12AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:

quoted

Anyway, All I'm trying to do here is keep things clean in the DT. We only have
one consistent option:

No, not really.

quoted

Match all sub parts by compatible:

quoted

Or we end up with some hybrid approach, matching some on node name, others
on compatible when needed. Yes, the above matches Linux device model (still
not sure why that is such a problem?), but it also matches modular functionality
in the device.

There's also the third option where we don't have any compatible strings
in the subnodes at all.

Ok, two, but would you really want to go that way? Matching by node name costs
us all of the flexibility of DT sub-device selection. Still don't see an upside
as we would now be locked to node names instead of compatible strings to declare
component type compatibility (what they are for).