[PATCH 5/5] PCI fixes for the MPC8641 Rev 2.0 silicon and Rev 1.02hardware
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Sat May 19 03:43:46 EST 2007
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Just being able to delete a given node/property would be enough.
I'd rather have an additive model than a subtractive one. And it would
not be enough, as you would not be able to have two different versions
of a property with the same name.
>> On a related note, would it be better to name the node
>> "/u-boot/hwoptions" (two levels deep)? It seems very desirable to me to
>
>
> It's not a u-boot-specific concept. The idea of representing jumpers
> (and other hardware options) in the device tree is not something that's
> unique to u-boot or any boot loader. The conditionals, however, are a
> bootloader-specific concept. We don't want Linux to see them.
I put the u-boot namespace qualifier on there because the implementation
is being suggested in the context of u-boot, and it's not a general OF
binding. However, as long as it gets nuked before passing it on to the
kernel, OF/ePAPR/whatever compliance isn't quite as relevant, so plain
old "hwoptions" should be OK.
-Scott
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list