From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:38:45 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Grant Likely Subject: Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt Message-ID: <20071016023845.GK26787@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071015165505.GA16040@lixom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: Olof Johansson , linuxppc-dev , microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > established. > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting *without* of" to "of *"... -- 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