On 08/09/2011 09:43 AM, Robin Holt wrote: > In working with the socketcan developers, we have come to the conclusion > the fsl-flexcan device tree bindings need to be cleaned up. > The driver does not depend upon any properties other than the required > properties > so we are removing the file.
That is not the criterion for whether something should be expresed in the device tree. It's a description of the hardware, not a Linux driver configuration file. If there are integration parameters that can not be inferred from "this is FSL flexcan v1.0", they should be expressed in the node. Removing the binding altogether seems extreme as well -- we should have bindings for all devices, even if there are no special properties. > Additionally, the p1010*dts files are not > following the standard for node naming in that they have a trailing -v1.0. What "standard for node naming"? There's nothing wrong with putting a block version number in the compatible string, and it looks like the p1010 dts files were following the binding document in this regard. It is common practice when the block version is publicly documented but there's no register it can be read from at runtime. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
