From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:19:57 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: RFC: new device types in the device tree (RE: [PATCH] powerpc: Add EDAC platform devices for 85xx) Message-ID: <20070502011957.GA12876@localhost.localdomain> References: <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302D5DC6F@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <567cddf8855d809f2e0c5b4101c2c15a@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <567cddf8855d809f2e0c5b4101c2c15a@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Yoder Stuart-B08248 , bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 02:34:45AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> "name" = "memory-controller" > >> "compatible" = "fsl,85xx-memory-controller" > >> (or a more specific 85xx model if the controller > >> isn't identical across those chips) > >> No "device_type" at all, since there is no binding > >> for this kind of device. > > > > Is "no device_type" really the approach that should be > > taken? > > Yes. > > > booting-without-of.txt currently reads: > > > > Every node which actually represents an actual device > > (that is, a node which isn't only a virtual "container" > > for more nodes, like "/cpus" is) is also required to > > have a "device_type" property indicating the type of > > node > > That is wrong, IMNSHO. I tend to agree. Device drivers should generally be searching on the "compatible" property, not "device_type". Defining new device_type values isn't really of any use to the kernel, so we should just avoid it. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson