From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.228]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAB2DDF07 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:10:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f6so494557rvb.9 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:10:14 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Scott Wood" Subject: Re: [RFC] GPIO-Watchdog in devicetree In-Reply-To: <20080925175907.GA4747@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080922194357.GA32041@pengutronix.de> <20080923150256.GC13593@secretlab.ca> <20080925175907.GA4747@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:02:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > For example: > > / { > > model = "pengutronix,super-sexy-board"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > > #size-cells = <1>; > > super-sexy-board,watchdog-gpio = <&gpio_simple 19 0>; > > ... > > } > > Why as a property of the root node, and not as a node with a very > specific compatible property? Because the root node is the only logical board-level node we have right now. However, I'm not deeply committed to this approach. The only question I have about putting it in another node is choosing the parent node. I don't think it fits to make it a child of the SoC node or any other bus node. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.