On 10/18/2011 10:28 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/18/2011 04:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> I only suggested the well-known-named sub-nodes in order to eliminate >>> the need for a compatible property. >>> >>> My inclination is that if we use compatible to distinguish the tables >>> from anything else, there's little point having the extra level of nodes; >>> we may as well lay it out as in your original patch, just with an explicit >>> nvidia,ram-code property in each table (or omitted/ignored when not using >>> it) instead of reg? >> >> Node names should be generic like serial or ethernet. Compatible is used >> to specify the specific model. > > In cases where unit addresses can be used to separate out identical > entries, yes. For something like this, there's no logical addressing > of the tables so something else must be used to distinguish them. Using the frequency as was previously proposed would work assuming that is unique. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
