Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt

["Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On 10/15/07, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
> > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy.  Plus
> > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
> > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
> > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
> > > >
> > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
> > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
> > >
> > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
> > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
> > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
> > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
> > > have any suggestions on better names though.
> >
> > I think I need to stick with the of prefix.  All the support API in
> > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
> > established.
> >
> > How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
>
> It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting
> *without* of" to "of *"...

Heh; true.  The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is
because *all* the support APIs are named that way.  I'll happily use
another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little
group think it should be something else.

Cheers,
g.


-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195