Timur Tabi wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley <w...@firmworks.com> wrote:
It seems to me that there are plausible use cases for both direct-inclusion
and indirection. I don't see any real problems with either, so I would vote
for specifying both alternatives.
Ugh. Then this one driver would need to implement both binding for
little, if any, actual benefit.
Although I agree that I don't like supporting both bindings, we could
encapsulate the locating of the firmware node in a function. The
function will first look for a child firmware node, and if it doesn't
find it, look for a fsl,firmware property. It will return a pointer
to the firmware node regardless.
I'm sure we can come to an agreement
on one method if the firmware absolutely has to be in the tree.
If we have to pick one, then I think the only viable choice is have a
separate firmware node and a phandle pointer to it. Otherwise, I
just don't see how we can handle multiple devices needing the same
firmware.
You would duplicate the firmware. I vote for supporting both -- a few
lines in the binding code is not that big of a deal, and it would
provide more flexibility for the tree to describe the structure of
things -- but either way is usable.
Personally, my vote lies with direct-inclusion. However, if
indirection is used, then I think it would be wise to define where
data-only nodes like this should live. Under /chosen perhaps?
I personally don't care that much; /chosen is okay with me, but ....
It
wouldn't be good to place it somewhere where it will be confused for
an actual device node.
... what's wrong with the root node?
Nothing, IMHO. It shouldn't get confused for anything in the absence of
some code specifically looking for that name or compatible -- any more
than /chosen itself is mistaken for a device.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
