Wrapping proprietary nodes

[David VomLehn]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:32:46AM -0700, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devicetree-discuss-
> > bounces+stuart.yoder=freescale.com at lists.ozlabs.org
> [mailto:devicetree-
> > discuss-bounces+stuart.yoder=freescale.com at lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > David VomLehn
> > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 4:45 PM
> > To: Device at dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net; Tree at dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net;
> > Mailing at dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net; List at dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net;
> > devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Wrapping proprietary nodes
> > 
> > I expect my device tree will have some proprietary, one-off devices in
> it.
...
> > Or should they be specified one node at a time:
> > 
> > 	cisco-device1 {
> > 		...
> > 	};
> > 	cisco-device2 {
> > 		...
> > 	};
> > 
> > My inclination is for the former, but I'd prefer to follow existing
> usage,
> > if any.
> 
> (David, long time no see...:)
> 
> The device tree should represent your hardware as it is.  If these
> devices sit on some bus, then you should probably represent the
> bus, with the devices as subnodes.   Don't create logical container
> nodes unless they are warranted for some good reason.
> 
> Stuart

Makes sense. My example uses the prefix "cisco-"; does this follow common
usage?

-- 
David VL