Re: [RFC] [PATCH] ARM: tegra: emc: device tree bindings

[Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/18/2011 10:28 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2011 04:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> I only suggested the well-known-named sub-nodes in order to eliminate
>>> the need for a compatible property.
>>>
>>> My inclination is that if we use compatible to distinguish the tables
>>> from anything else, there's little point having the extra level of nodes;
>>> we may as well lay it out as in your original patch, just with an explicit
>>> nvidia,ram-code property in each table (or omitted/ignored when not using
>>> it) instead of reg?
>>
>> Node names should be generic like serial or ethernet. Compatible is used
>> to specify the specific model.
> 
> In cases where unit addresses can be used to separate out identical
> entries, yes. For something like this, there's no logical addressing
> of the tables so something else must be used to distinguish them.

Using the frequency as was previously proposed would work assuming that
is unique.

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel