From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:04:59 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mpc8349emitx.dts: Add ds1339 RTC Message-ID: <20070925020459.GE30338@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070920104211.896143373@sunsite.dk> <20070920104313.217207466@sunsite.dk> <20070920133528.GC14820@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <874pholbdk.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20070924050709.GM8058@localhost.localdomain> <46F7CF2F.9070805@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <46F7CF2F.9070805@freescale.com> Cc: Timur Tabi , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:52:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > David Gibson wrote: > >> i2c@3100 { > >> + #address-cells = <1>; > >> + #size-cells = <0>; > >> device_type = "i2c"; > > > > Hrm... we probably want an "i2c" device_type class, but I don't think > > we've actually defined one, which is a problem > > Right... but we need to get the kernel to stop expecting the device type > to be there before we yell at people for including it. :-) Obviously. We should make sure all the corresponding compatibles are specific enough, change the drivers, then think about getting rid of it. > > The fact that NVRAM+RTC chips are so common is a bit of an issue from > > the point of view of defining a device class binding - a device can't > > have type "rtc" and "nvram". > > This is one of the reasons that I'd prefer to use compatible for such > things. Yeah, fair enough. -- 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