[RFC] [PATCH] ARM: tegra: emc: device tree bindings

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> 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.


-Olof