On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Without the compatible property, the only way I'd know that the child node
>>> contains a firmware is to look at the actual name of the child node, which
>>> (as Scott and I believe) is not better than a compatible property.
>> If it is always a child of a qe node, then I've got no objections.
>
> I have no problem with putting the firmware node as a child of the QE node
> and skipping the phandle property, but only as long as there's only one QE
> node. Would you agree that this is bad:
>
> qe1: q...@e0080000 {
> compatible = "fsl,qe";
> qefw: fsl,qe_firmware {
> compatible="fsl,qe-firmware";
> fsl,firmware = /bininc/("firmware-blob.bin");
> fsl,qe-firmware-eccr = <0x00000000 0x00001230>;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> qe2: q...@e0090000 {
> compatible = "fsl,qe";
> fsl,firmware-phandle = <&qefw>;
> ...
> }
Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe
node would look bad to me.
g.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
