> Explicitly specifying what device class bindings / conventions the
> node complies with is cute, but not actually all that useful in
> practice. If it looks like a "duck" class device node, and it
> quacks^Whas the properties of a "duck" class device node, it's "duck"
> class compliant.
Don't know how cute it is, but I think it is practically
helpful. Take another example:
Say you-- a human reader-- see this in a device
tree:
...
interrupts = <b 8>;
interrupt-parent = < &mpic >;
...
What does the 'b' and '8' mean? You look
at the interrupt controller node--
mpic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
clock-frequency = <0>;
interrupt-controller;
#address-cells = <0>;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
reg = <40000 40000>;
compatible = "fsl,xyz";
big-endian;
}
Note-- I removed the device_type property and changed
compatible somewhat. How are you going to find where
the meaning interrupt controller's interrupt cells are
defined? What spec will you look at?
device_type = "open-pic"; makes it perfectly clear.
It's an open-pic type controller and follows that
binding.
Stuart
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
