On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
> Here's an example of what I'm trying to get at-- take
> a node from a FSL device tree. The ideas I've heard
> for expressing the class are like this--
>
> #1 don't express any class at all:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth";
> model = "UCC";
> device-id = <3>;
> reg = <2200 200>;
> interrupts = <22>;
> interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
> mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
> local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
> rx-clock = <19>;
> tx-clock = <1a>;
> phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
> pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
>
>
> > This is bad IMHO because the human reader has to
> > infer the class of device. Can the human reader
> > tell if it implements a standardized binding or
> > not??
Well... except that by the generic names convention, the node should
be called "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", which makes it rather clearer to a human
reader.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
