Here's an example of what I'm trying to get at-- take
a node from a FSL device tree. The ideas I've heard
for expressing the class are like this--
#1 don't express any class at all:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth";
model = "UCC";
device-id = <3>;
reg = <2200 200>;
interrupts = <22>;
interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
rx-clock = <19>;
tx-clock = <1a>;
phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
> This is bad IMHO because the human reader has to
> infer the class of device. Can the human reader
> tell if it implements a standardized binding or
> not??
#2 use device_type
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
device_type = "network";
compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth";
model = "UCC";
device-id = <3>;
reg = <2200 200>;
interrupts = <22>;
interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
rx-clock = <19>;
tx-clock = <1a>;
phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
};
> This is better...I can tell it implments the network
> binding. The problem is the past abuse and OF
> connotations.
#3 use a new "class" property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
class = "network";
compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth";
model = "UCC";
device-id = <3>;
reg = <2200 200>;
interrupts = <22>;
interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
rx-clock = <19>;
tx-clock = <1a>;
phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
};
> This is good...I can tell it implments the "network"
> binding. There is no association with the abused
> OF device_type.
#4 use "compatible"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth","[official spec],network";
model = "UCC";
device-id = <3>;
reg = <2200 200>;
interrupts = <22>;
interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
rx-clock = <19>;
tx-clock = <1a>;
phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
};
> I don't like this...we are overloading "compatible" with
> stuff that is not specifying a programming interface. compatible
> is supposed to be specifying a programming interface which
> the device complies to.
Stuart
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
