On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:45:35PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > +devicetree-spec as a good question to separate from the fire hose. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Peter Griffin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Rob, Pawel, Mark, Ian and Kumar, > > > > Quick question regarding this series here > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/8/832. and the proposed > > st,fw-name binding. > > Thanks for looking at the bigger picture. > > > What are the rules with putting firmware names into DT? > > Whatever you can sneak in without DT maintainers noticing... > > > Is it allowed? > > They are already there as you have found, so yes. But should they be > allowed? Possibly. I'm not saying no, but do have some concerns.
I think this is a genuine edge case. A firmware name isn't strictly
speaking hardware description, but if the names exist in some "well
known" OS independent namespace, then it's a reasonable thing to be
specified in the device tree.
That said, I have some concerns on points, see later replies to the thread.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgpLIa3dO79JK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
