From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:15:33 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC] GPIO-Watchdog in devicetree Message-ID: <20080926011533.GC13228@yookeroo.seuss> References: <20080922194357.GA32041@pengutronix.de> <20080923150256.GC13593@secretlab.ca> <20080925175907.GA4747@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <48DBD6A3.7070102@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <48DBD6A3.7070102@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:21:23PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:02:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >>>> For example: >>>> / { >>>> model = "pengutronix,super-sexy-board"; >>>> #address-cells = <1>; >>>> #size-cells = <1>; >>>> super-sexy-board,watchdog-gpio = <&gpio_simple 19 0>; >>>> ... >>>> } >>> Why as a property of the root node, and not as a node with a very >>> specific compatible property? >> >> Because the root node is the only logical board-level node we have >> right now. However, I'm not deeply committed to this approach. The >> only question I have about putting it in another node is choosing the >> parent node. I don't think it fits to make it a child of the SoC node >> or any other bus node. > > A child of the gpio controller node seems most logical, though a child > of the root node would be OK. It was the freefloating property that > struck me as a little odd. I concur. -- 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