Subnodes of vendor-added nodes

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, David Gibson
<david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:37:35PM -0700, David VomLehn 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?
>
> If the subnodes and properties in question have the semantics of
> existing nodes or properties, just in the context of the new vendor
> node, then no, you can use the existing names.
>
> If they're newly defined nodes and properties with their own new
> semantics, then, yes, they should have the vendor prefix.
>
> There is some grey area here.  IBM, for example, it its OF
> implementations has heaps of "ibm,XXX" properties for things which
> were not defined at the time the old OF working group stopped doing
> much of anything.  Some of these are truly vendor specific and deserve
> the prefix, others are actually pretty general in concept and it would
> have been nice in some ways to define new general bindings for them
> without the vendor prefixes.

Hmmm, good point.  It would be a good idea to use the prefix for the
properties of the sub nodes (assuming they aren't truly generic).  The
node names should be fine without however.

g.