Re: New fsl device bindings file

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 11:26:24AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 01:12:31AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> 	/* deprecated; */
> >>> 	device_type = "i2c";
> >>
> >> How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open  
> >> Firmware
> >> implementations"?
> >
> > Well, except a flat tree isn't compatible with OF at all here.
> > A "device_type" promises a certain interface; a flat tree doesn't
> > even have the "open" method.  From the OF base spec:
> >
> > 	“device_type” S
> >
> > 	Standard property name to specify the implemented interface.
> >
> > 	prop-encoded-array: Text string encoded with encode-string.
> >
> > 	Specifies the “device type” of this package, thus implying a
> > 	specific set of package class methods implemented by this
> > 	package.
> >
> >> Seriously, you can't have a binding for "OF" and then cut out that  
> >> part of the
> >> standard at a whim.
> >
> > Nothing is cut out.  There never was a device binding for device_type
> > i2c; creating one would be a considerable effort, and since flat tree
> > users wouldn't use it anyway, you can't be seriously suggesting they
> > should do this.
> >
> >> It should be there (at least for those parts which are
> >> governed by a client interface API, like display, serial etc.
> >
> > Huh?  Nothing in the client interface mentions display or serial
> > as far as I know.
> >
> >> but cutting it off takes away all it's meaning,
> >
> > So what?  There _is_ no "real" device interface, when a flat tree is
> > used.
> >
> >> plus Linux implementations STILL keep searching
> >> that property along with "compatible",
> >
> > That's a bug.
> 
> Thank you Segher, you saved me the trouble of saying exactly all that.

Ditto.

g.