quoted

1.  There are types of nodes that don't have a programming
    inteface per se and thus no compatible.
    "cpu", "memory", "cache" are 3 that come to mind.

=20
Well, yes, this is why I suggested treating these "fundamental" nodes
as a special case in an earlier mail.

Given your statement below, I'm wondering how you think
"fundamental" nodes should be represented ideally?
=20

The *only* reason I'm suggesting leaving device_type values for
IEEE1275 defined classes is so that flat trees written as flat trees
look more similar to OF derived trees.

So, ideally (without respect to 1275) how should a "cpu"
node be represented and identified as a cpu node?

Stuart