Subnodes of vendor-added nodes

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, David VomLehn <dvomlehn at cisco.com> wrote:
> I know the device tree has a protocol for vendors to extend the types of nodes without
> causing namespace collisions, e.g. acme,explosives. Do subnodes and properties of the
> extended nodes also need the leading <vendor> and comma?

Nope; haven't done that so far.  There isn't the same threat of
namespace conflict there because deciding by-name what to do with a
node is generally discouraged.  There are cases where it is
appropriate, (ie. /chosen and /cpus), but generally nodes should be
named according to the "generic names" recommended practice.

g.