From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <B04825@freescale.com>
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 314D3B7CE7
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:39:58 +1100 (EST)
Received: from az33smr02.freescale.net (az33smr02.freescale.net [10.64.34.200])
	by az33egw02.freescale.net (8.14.3/az33egw02) with ESMTP id
	o2QIdtRw028459
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:39:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net (az33exm25.am.freescale.net
	[10.64.32.16])
	by az33smr02.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id o2QIdxgC000893
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:39:59 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4BACFF7B.3010002@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:39:55 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware
References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com>
	<fa686aa41003241007mf6052d5s4643795f4a87cdcf@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BAA4C8A.70104@freescale.com>
	<65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org>
	<4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com>
	<fa686aa41003250916t3d0839e5m42d7f7f6540e821a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com>
	<fa686aa41003251826m16ea94dfy422fae14fec81204@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BACD011.5050609@freescale.com>
	<fa686aa41003261120o15fea3cev8ca625f389bc8664@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa41003261120o15fea3cev8ca625f389bc8664@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Grant Likely wrote:
>> Without the compatible property, the only way I'd know that the child node contains a firmware is to look at the actual name of the child node, which (as Scott and I believe) is not better than a compatible property.
> If it is always a child of a qe node, then I've got no objections.

I have no problem with putting the firmware node as a child of the QE node and skipping the phandle property, but only as long as there's only one QE node.  Would you agree that this is bad:

qe1: qe@e0080000 {
        compatible = "fsl,qe";
        qefw: fsl,qe_firmware {
                compatible="fsl,qe-firmware";
                fsl,firmware = /bininc/("firmware-blob.bin");
                fsl,qe-firmware-eccr = <0x00000000 0x00001230>;
        }
        ...
}

qe2: qe@e0090000 {
        compatible = "fsl,qe";
	fsl,firmware-phandle = <&qefw>;
        ...
}

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale