On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] w=
rote:

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 01:09 +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

We need it as it currently doesn't match with the default bus ids.

quoted

Should I introduce a .type property matching any of those above
in the
soc node, and get rid of the explicit bus probe?

You don't need any fake bus as far as I can see, just probe the
devices
you want.

But it's way easier to let the bus probe do it for us. I don't see
the win here.

As long as this doesn't leak into the device tree in any way, I don't
care. =A0How's that? :-)

I still like having the node that encloses all the devices. Not sure
why, but I like it :-)

I do to. =A0It documents that all these things are enclosed in a single
package and provides grouping device nodes with nodes describing
shared registers and the like.

And for the same reason I keep all my socks in the same drawer.  :-)

g.

--=20
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.