On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 01:09 +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >>> We need it as it currently doesn't match with the default bus ids. >> >> >> >>> Should I introduce a .type property matching any of those above >> >>> in the >> >>> soc node, and get rid of the explicit bus probe? >> >> >> >> You don't need any fake bus as far as I can see, just probe the >> >> devices >> >> you want. >> > >> > But it's way easier to let the bus probe do it for us. I don't see >> > the win here. >> >> As long as this doesn't leak into the device tree in any way, I don't >> care. How's that? :-) > > I still like having the node that encloses all the devices. Not sure > why, but I like it :-)
I do to. It documents that all these things are enclosed in a single package and provides grouping device nodes with nodes describing shared registers and the like. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
