RFC: replace device_type with new "class" property?

[Yoder Stuart-B08248]

> > 1.  There are types of nodes that don't have a programming
> >     inteface per se and thus no compatible.
> >     "cpu", "memory", "cache" are 3 that come to mind.
> 
> Well, yes, this is why I suggested treating these "fundamental" nodes
> as a special case in an earlier mail.

Given your statement below, I'm wondering how you think
"fundamental" nodes should be represented ideally?
 
> The *only* reason I'm suggesting leaving device_type values for
> IEEE1275 defined classes is so that flat trees written as flat trees
> look more similar to OF derived trees.

So, ideally (without respect to 1275) how should a "cpu"
node be represented and identified as a cpu node?

Stuart