On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:45:35PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > +devicetree-spec as a good question to separate from the fire hose. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, Pawel, Mark, Ian and Kumar, > > > > Quick question regarding this series here > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/8/832. and the proposed > > st,fw-name binding. > > Thanks for looking at the bigger picture. > > > What are the rules with putting firmware names into DT? > > Whatever you can sneak in without DT maintainers noticing... > > > Is it allowed? > > They are already there as you have found, so yes. But should they be > allowed? Possibly. I'm not saying no, but do have some concerns. I think this is a genuine edge case. A firmware name isn't strictly speaking hardware description, but if the names exist in some "well known" OS independent namespace, then it's a reasonable thing to be specified in the device tree. That said, I have some concerns on points, see later replies to the thread. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpN2E6OT4D7U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
