Re: Device tree BSP

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>]

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 15:53 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> This is not a question that I've got an answer to, but
> I've been thinking about defining a "machine" node, or something
> similar that can be a parent of such non-addressable devices.  I'm
> hoping Mitch, Ben, DavidG, Scott, or some other OF active folks will
> jump in here and give their opinion before I go and define something
> braindead.  I was thinking something like this, where the root node
> would be the parent of this machine node:

Well, device nodes can perfectly represent non addressable devices...
One way is to have no "reg" property but that sucks as you get no unit
address neither which can cause problems when you have multiple of them.

So hosting them under some kind of node that would break that address
translatability (have no "ranges" property) makes some amount of sense
though I don't necessarily like the term "machine".

But if no "reg" is good for you, then stick them in the soc node with
distinct names.

Also, why "virtual," in your compatible property for the SPI node ? It's
not really virtual... 

Cheers,
Ben.