On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:19, Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:01 AM Jassi Brar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I may be wrong, but I see having fwu properties contained within the > > fwu node is cleaner than having them embedded into existing bindings > > (potentially different classes in future). So I moved to the current > > design. > > Having all the information related to a device/node in one place is cleaner > IMO. > > As I said, if u-boot wants private interfaces between the DT and > itself, then fine, but that should remain private and be stripped by > u-boot. A separate node would certainly be easier for doing that. > Seems we are on the same page(?). Current implementation does exactly that -- we have a separate fwu node containing all the properties it needs.
thanks.
