From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: Device tree BSP Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:08:38 -0600 Message-ID: References: <4A49F472.3030902@petalogix.com> <20090704181837.4DC219B0051@mail75-va3.bigfish.com> <1d3f23370907050218l6b2eb9emdbcb7dc321dbab5a@mail.gmail.com> <20090705204647.1BBCAB2004B@mail107-dub.bigfish.com> <1246831858.22625.4.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1246831858.22625.4.camel@pasglop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, David DeBonis , Scott Wood , michal.simek-g5w7nrANp4BDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org, John Linn , John Williams List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > 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. =A0I'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. =A0I 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". Neither do I, but I've got nothing better. I'm open to suggestions. :-) > But if no "reg" is good for you, then stick them in the soc node with > distinct names. It doesn't really belong in the soc node either because it is all stuff external to the SoC. > Also, why "virtual," in your compatible property for the SPI node ? It's > not really virtual... I don't like 'virtual,' either, but its in the currently documented binding. (Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/gpio/mdio.txt). g. -- = Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.