On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> The node should be named just "usb", not "xhci" (no programming >>>>> interface >>>>> specific names), according to the ePAPR spec [1]. > > > >>>> What about the existing node names "ohci@" and "ehci@"? > > >>> Unfortunately, they are all wrong, as many others. It seems almost >>> nobody >>> reads: > > >>> http://www.devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage > > >> Can you point me to the section that indicates ohci/ehci/xhci are >> incorrect? > > > http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage#Node_Names > > See also section 2.2.2 in the ePAPR spec. > > WBR, Sergei > I read http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage#Node_Names to say not to use vendor specific names and xhci is not vendor specific. ePAPR states: "The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function of the device and not its precise programming model." And while xhci does describe the programming interface, it also describes the functionality and fits in better with the already established "ehci" and "ohci" node names. Al -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
