From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from mail-in-02.arcor-online.net (mail-in-02.arcor-online.net
	[151.189.21.42])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.arcor.de",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896EEDDFB7
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu,  3 May 2007 10:55:14 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20070503001729.GB4331@localhost.localdomain>
References: <e359e43198096bc73cdac058c6e5ad6d@kernel.crashing.org>
	<9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302D5DC6F@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net>
	<567cddf8855d809f2e0c5b4101c2c15a@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20070502011957.GA12876@localhost.localdomain>
	<9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302D5E1A9@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net>
	<20070503001729.GB4331@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <4f5491492db61da912b8c4802442d021@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: new device types in the device tree (RE: [PATCH] powerpc:
	Add EDAC platform devices for 85xx)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 02:55:08 +0200
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Yoder Stuart-B08248 <stuart.yoder@freescale.com>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

> If there's an obvious new class, with common properties, then yes,
> sure.  But I don't think we need to feel impelled to think up new
> classes (and therefore a device_type value) for each new device.
>
> And even in the case of new classes, I think we might be best off
> waiting for a few devices to appear so we can tell what's really
> common information before we define the class's device_type and
> required properties.

Nicely put, thanks.


Segher