On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:39:06AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:19, Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:01 AM Jassi Brar <jaswinder.si...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I may be wrong, but I see having fwu properties contained within the > > > fwu node is cleaner than having them embedded into existing bindings > > > (potentially different classes in future). So I moved to the current > > > design. > > > > Having all the information related to a device/node in one place is cleaner > > IMO. > > > > As I said, if u-boot wants private interfaces between the DT and > > itself, then fine, but that should remain private and be stripped by > > u-boot. A separate node would certainly be easier for doing that. > > > Seems we are on the same page(?). Current implementation does exactly > that -- we have a separate fwu node containing all the properties it > needs.
Well, isn't part of why we're here is that this isn't strictly a U-Boot only thing? My question is can, and then is, this also being used in other projects yet? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
