RFC: replace device_type with new "class" property?
stuart.yoder at freescale.com
Thu Nov 1 02:25:28 EST 2007
> > 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?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev