Scott wrote: > Personally, I'm fine with just using name and compatible, but others such as > Stuart have expressed a desire for something to formally indicate compliance > with a standard binding. I don't think we should expand the use of > device_type in any case.
I agree that the existing compatible property is sufficient to do what Stuart wants. All that is required is to define some standard bindings and give them well-known names for the compatible property. If needed, we could define a prefix that indicates that a compatible entry refers to a standards-compliant binding. For example, "standard,network", or "standard,display". I don't see the benefit of creating a new property similar to device_type. -Dale _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
