> On Feb 8, 2021, at 10:00 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:47 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 4:01 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 1:26 AM David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:57:54AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>> There’s an old thread about this from 2016: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-spec/msg00296.html >>>> >>>> That is not the only case of this - IIRC old Apple machine device >>>> trees had both an 'l2-cache' property and an 'l2-cache' node under >>>> each CPU node. >>> >>> According to a dump I have, '/cpus/PowerPC,G4' has 'l2-cache' property >>> and '/cpus/PowerPC,G4/PowerPC,G4' node has a node name of 'l2-cache'. >>> So this would actually work with yaml if we brought back explicit >>> 'name' properties. But this highlights we've already diverged from >>> OpenFirmware. >> >> For reference, the new Mac Mini has a "pmgr" node that has both >> a property clpc=<0x3> and a child node named 'clpc'. > > That's the tip of the iceberg for the new Apple stuff. I have no > interest in supporting a 3rd firmware interface as that is what it is. > It may share some heritage with DT, but it's 15 years of Apple > evolving their own thing in a vacuum. > > Rob I agree with Rob here. I don’t think we should contort the directions we want to take devicetree spec to an entity that is not engaged with the DT community. - k
