On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:21:23PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:02:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> For example:
>>>> / {
>>>> model = "pengutronix,super-sexy-board";
>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>>> super-sexy-board,watchdog-gpio = <&gpio_simple 19 0>;
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>> Why as a property of the root node, and not as a node with a very
>>> specific compatible property?
>>
>> Because the root node is the only logical board-level node we have
>> right now. However, I'm not deeply committed to this approach. The
>> only question I have about putting it in another node is choosing the
>> parent node. I don't think it fits to make it a child of the SoC node
>> or any other bus node.
>
> A child of the gpio controller node seems most logical, though a child
> of the root node would be OK. It was the freefloating property that
> struck me as a little odd.
I concur.
--
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
