From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.169]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1190BDDE25 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:38:38 +1100 (EST) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so480667ugf for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:38:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <528646bc0701190838w106d6407h9516ccc37349111a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:38:36 -0700 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@gmail.com To: "Yoder Stuart-B08248" Subject: Re: Discussion on SOC device tree bindings In-Reply-To: <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA3023612F8@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA3023612F8@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev Development , Sven Luther List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 1/19/07, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote: > > Back in Grant's original summary of the problem he wrote: > > > > 5. The contentious issue is which direction those links should be > > constructed. Does the device node describe where to find it's SoC > > parent node and what the device index is? Or does the SoC node > > describe which device nodes it provides shared register service for? > > How about linking in _both_ directions? I think that's a bad precedence. Either representation can be generated from the other. Linking it in both directions means duplicate information with no real benefit. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195