On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 01:12:31AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> /* deprecated; */
>>> device_type = "i2c";
>>
>> How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open
>> Firmware
>> implementations"?
>
> Well, except a flat tree isn't compatible with OF at all here.
> A "device_type" promises a certain interface; a flat tree doesn't
> even have the "open" method. From the OF base spec:
>
> “device_type” S
>
> Standard property name to specify the implemented interface.
>
> prop-encoded-array: Text string encoded with encode-string.
>
> Specifies the “device type” of this package, thus implying a
> specific set of package class methods implemented by this
> package.
>
>> Seriously, you can't have a binding for "OF" and then cut out that
>> part of the
>> standard at a whim.
>
> Nothing is cut out. There never was a device binding for device_type
> i2c; creating one would be a considerable effort, and since flat tree
> users wouldn't use it anyway, you can't be seriously suggesting they
> should do this.
>
>> It should be there (at least for those parts which are
>> governed by a client interface API, like display, serial etc.
>
> Huh? Nothing in the client interface mentions display or serial
> as far as I know.
>
>> but cutting it off takes away all it's meaning,
>
> So what? There _is_ no "real" device interface, when a flat tree is
> used.
>
>> plus Linux implementations STILL keep searching
>> that property along with "compatible",
>
> That's a bug.
Thank you Segher, you saved me the trouble of saying exactly all that.
--
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
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
