From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:50:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BAB9443.6050107@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com>
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley <wmb@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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:50:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BAB9443.6050107@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAB9120.1060600-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-25 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-23 21:42 [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware Timur Tabi
2010-03-23 21:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 6:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 6:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 12:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 12:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 17:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-24 17:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-24 17:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 17:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 17:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 17:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 18:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 18:21 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:21 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:25 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:24 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-24 18:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 1:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-25 1:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-25 14:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 14:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:34 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:34 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:46 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:46 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:23 ` Rafal Jaworowski
2010-03-26 18:23 ` Rafal Jaworowski
2010-03-25 23:53 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-25 23:53 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-26 0:22 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 0:22 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 15:16 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 15:16 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 15:29 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-25 15:29 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-25 16:16 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:16 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:36 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:36 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:50 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2010-03-25 16:50 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:59 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:59 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 17:03 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 17:35 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 17:35 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 18:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 19:53 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 19:53 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 20:04 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 21:54 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 21:54 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 22:19 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 22:19 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 21:39 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 21:39 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 22:47 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 22:47 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 21:22 ` David Gibson
2010-03-25 21:22 ` David Gibson
2010-03-26 1:26 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 1:26 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 15:17 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 15:17 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:20 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:20 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:39 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:44 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:44 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:56 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:56 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:58 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-26 18:58 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-26 19:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 19:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:27 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-24 18:27 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BAB9443.6050107@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=timur@freescale.com \
--cc=wmb@firmworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.