On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 09:02 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > So just keep the ibm? I'm okay with that. That would help move to > common code. Alternatively, we could drop the vendor prefix and have > common code just check for both. That wouldn't be the first time we go down that path and it makes sense imho. > All points that could be asked of the IBM binding. Perhaps Arnd or > Ben can provide some insight or know who can? They are part of the PAPR specification which we've been trying to get published for a while now but that hasn't happened yet. Beware that there are variants of the format based on some other property. There's also "ibm,associativity-reference-points" which is used to calculate distances. I'll see if I can get you an excerpt of the PAPR chapter, or reword it, in the next few days (please poke me if I drop the ball next week). Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
