From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58396B7CF5 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:50:17 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4BAB9443.6050107@freescale.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:50:11 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <90D93687-940F-47FB-8CEA-F3C065EA611D@kernel.crashing.org> <4BAA4C8A.70104@freescale.com> <65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Mitch Bradley , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Timur Tabi wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote: >>> It seems to me that there are plausible use cases for both direct-inclusion >>> and indirection. I don't see any real problems with either, so I would vote >>> for specifying both alternatives. >> Ugh. Then this one driver would need to implement both binding for >> little, if any, actual benefit. > > Although I agree that I don't like supporting both bindings, we could > encapsulate the locating of the firmware node in a function. The > function will first look for a child firmware node, and if it doesn't > find it, look for a fsl,firmware property. It will return a pointer > to the firmware node regardless. > >> I'm sure we can come to an agreement >> on one method if the firmware absolutely has to be in the tree. > > If we have to pick one, then I think the only viable choice is have a > separate firmware node and a phandle pointer to it. Otherwise, I > just don't see how we can handle multiple devices needing the same > firmware. You would duplicate the firmware. I vote for supporting both -- a few lines in the binding code is not that big of a deal, and it would provide more flexibility for the tree to describe the structure of things -- but either way is usable. >> Personally, my vote lies with direct-inclusion. However, if >> indirection is used, then I think it would be wise to define where >> data-only nodes like this should live. Under /chosen perhaps? > > I personally don't care that much; /chosen is okay with me, but .... > >> It >> wouldn't be good to place it somewhere where it will be confused for >> an actual device node. > > ... what's wrong with the root node? Nothing, IMHO. It shouldn't get confused for anything in the absence of some code specifically looking for that name or compatible -- any more than /chosen itself is mistaken for a device. -Scott