Hi,

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.

I think I need to stick with the of prefix.  All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.

How about Documentation/of-device-tree?

Sounds good to me, even though it doesn't really address the original
OF separation comment. :)

Maybe it's enough to document the difference between the linux-specific
flat device tree bindings and classic 1275-style bindings in the top
readme in that directory. Either way, it's not worth arguing over,
your suggestion is good enough.

quoted

Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor
boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested
better.

I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that
don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind).
 Other than that, the functional partitioning
lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device
type and follow up with device specific properties.

Yep, it could always be added down the road in case it's needed.


-Olof