From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f175.google.com (mail-iw0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060E7B7D03 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:17:14 +1100 (EST) Received: by iwn5 with SMTP id 5so571424iwn.9 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <90D93687-940F-47FB-8CEA-F3C065EA611D@kernel.crashing.org> <4BAA4C8A.70104@freescale.com> <65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:16:52 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware To: Mitch Bradley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Timur Tabi List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > It seems to me that there are plausible use cases for both direct-inclusi= on > and indirection. =A0I don't see any real problems with either, so I would= vote > for specifying both alternatives. Ugh. Then this one driver would need to implement both binding for little, if any, actual benefit. I'm sure we can come to an agreement on one method if the firmware absolutely has to be in the tree. Personally, my vote lies with direct-inclusion. However, if indirection is used, then I think it would be wise to define where data-only nodes like this should live. Under /chosen perhaps? It wouldn't be good to place it somewhere where it will be confused for an actual device node. g.