On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, David Gibson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:37:35PM -0700, David VomLehn 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? > > If the subnodes and properties in question have the semantics of > existing nodes or properties, just in the context of the new vendor > node, then no, you can use the existing names. > > If they're newly defined nodes and properties with their own new > semantics, then, yes, they should have the vendor prefix. > > There is some grey area here. IBM, for example, it its OF > implementations has heaps of "ibm,XXX" properties for things which > were not defined at the time the old OF working group stopped doing > much of anything. Some of these are truly vendor specific and deserve > the prefix, others are actually pretty general in concept and it would > have been nice in some ways to define new general bindings for them > without the vendor prefixes.
Hmmm, good point. It would be a good idea to use the prefix for the properties of the sub nodes (assuming they aren't truly generic). The node names should be fine without however. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
