On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 10:33:30PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 5 December 2015 at 12:39, Jonas Gorski <jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Brian Norris
> > <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> +
> >> +Examples:
> >> +
> >> +flash@0 {
> >> + partitions {
> >> + compatible = "google,fmap";
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >
> > I wonder if this wouldn't be better served in a separate binding doc
> > with its compatible name as the filename, like we do with
> > driver^Whardware blocks, especially if we want to add more parsers.
>
>
> I find that *very* counter productive for bindings that go to the same
> node. You have a description of a node, and then suddenly there you
> have another file with another description of the same node. Totally
> awesome.
I can't actually work out from that if you're agreeing with the
original post or the first reply.
> Also how do you plan to write partitioning schemes with parameters
> like with non-zero offset of the partition table.
Presumably with properties in the patitions node. Not seeing the
problem here.
--
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:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
