Hi Ben, On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). did you get a chance to write an excerpt of the PAPR chapter? please share the details. > > Cheers, > Ben. > thanks Ganapat -- 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
