From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:36:48 -0500 Message-ID: <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com> References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <90D93687-940F-47FB-8CEA-F3C065EA611D@kernel.crashing.org> <4BAA4C8A.70104@freescale.com> <65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley 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. > 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? -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale