RFC: replace device_type with new "class" property?

[Dale Farnsworth]

Scott wrote:
> Personally, I'm fine with just using name and compatible, but others such as
> Stuart have expressed a desire for something to formally indicate compliance
> with a standard binding.  I don't think we should expand the use of
> device_type in any case.

I agree that the existing compatible property is sufficient to do
what Stuart wants.  All that is required is to define some standard
bindings and give them well-known names for the compatible property.
If needed, we could define a prefix that indicates that a compatible
entry refers to a standards-compliant binding.  For example,
"standard,network", or "standard,display".  I don't see the benefit
of creating a new property similar to device_type.

-Dale