On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, David VomLehn <[email protected]> wrote: > I know the device tree has a protocol for vendors to extend the types of > nodes without > causing namespace collisions, e.g. acme,explosives. Do subnodes and > properties of the > extended nodes also need the leading <vendor> and comma?
Nope; haven't done that so far. There isn't the same threat of namespace conflict there because deciding by-name what to do with a node is generally discouraged. There are cases where it is appropriate, (ie. /chosen and /cpus), but generally nodes should be named according to the "generic names" recommended practice. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
