On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dan Malek [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Grant.

On Jun 11, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

I've been doing a bit of work on some introductory level documentation
of the flattened device tree.

Wow, I feel empowered to create device trees now :-)
Seriously, I never understood this well and this is a
great document.

Hey, thanks!  That's a fantastic compliment!

I have one source of confusion. =A0Your first Initial structure
example uses 'compatible' to describe the machine, the
paragraph below then mentions the 'model' property,
and all subsequent examples use model.

Does this mean if I use just the single line in the dts,
using 'compatible' implies the ARM machine ID? =A0If I
have more description I use 'model'?

No, that is just a reflection of a late change I made to the document.
 It should be compatible all the way down.  I was trying to keep
things simple because on a lot of boards both compatible and model
properties will exist in the root node.  I started writing with model,
and then changed it last minute without fixing everything up which is
why the document was confusing.

I've fixed it now if you want to take a look.

I also changed the property in the cpu nodes from model to compatible
so that the exact CPU version can be specified.  This isn't actually
in any spec anywhere, but I need something to properly identify the
different ARM cores.

Mitch, I know you were working on a draft ARM binding a while ago,
have you resurrected it at all?  How do you think the core should be
identified?

Cheers,
g.