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>;
...
}
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
