> > 1. There are types of nodes that don't have a programming > > inteface per se and thus no compatible. > > "cpu", "memory", "cache" are 3 that come to mind. > > Well, yes, this is why I suggested treating these "fundamental" nodes > as a special case in an earlier mail.
Given your statement below, I'm wondering how you think "fundamental" nodes should be represented ideally? > The *only* reason I'm suggesting leaving device_type values for > IEEE1275 defined classes is so that flat trees written as flat trees > look more similar to OF derived trees. So, ideally (without respect to 1275) how should a "cpu" node be represented and identified as a cpu node? Stuart _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
