On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:20:49PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:53 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Again, this is _not_ how DT is supposed to work. DT is about describing > > the hardware, not describing the state of something. > > And that's exactly what I was trying to do. Describe the hardware, using > terminology *used by the hardware designers* - fact that you have chosen > to ignore, fair enough.
Again, you're totally FAILING to get the point. Had DT support been created before the new version came out there would be no 'legacy' in terminology what so ever. _That's_ the whole point. What you're using is *todays* terminology, not the terminology used at the point of *creation*. Why can't you get it through your thick skull that at some day, the entire Cortex-A5 series of CPUs is going to be called 'legacy'. And at that point, will you be wanting to rename all the properties because of that change? No. That's insane. So why the fuck do it now to the CA9x5? Try thinking. It's good for the mind. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss