From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <18006.31742.533944.368969@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 16:02:38 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: TSI ethernet PHY question In-Reply-To: References: <1B5F013528140F45B5C671039279CA5701BBBDE3@NANUK.pc.tundra.com> <1179960728.32247.953.camel@localhost.localdomain> <396FEEDC-99AB-4E25-9C80-A901923429B0@freescale.com> <1180047084.32247.1070.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2994f78d2591e45517247003d613bb98@kernel.crashing.org> <1180051272.32247.1087.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linuxppc-dev list , David Gibson , Alexandre Bounine List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Segher Boessenkool writes: > Only if you think the device tree is a configuration > mechanism for the OS. Well, actually, it's whatever we want it to be... There is some value in making the device tree abstract and general, but not an overwhelming value that trumps all other considerations. Paul.