Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley [off-list ref] wrote:

It seems to me that there are plausible use cases for both direct-inclusi=

on

and indirection. =A0I don't see any real problems with either, so I would=

 vote

for specifying both alternatives.

Ugh.  Then this one driver would need to implement both binding for
little, if any, actual benefit.  I'm sure we can come to an agreement
on one method if the firmware absolutely has to be in the tree.

Personally, my vote lies with direct-inclusion.  However, if
indirection is used, then I think it would be wise to define where
data-only nodes like this should live.  Under /chosen perhaps?  It
wouldn't be good to place it somewhere where it will be confused for
an actual device node.

g.