RFC: replace device_type with new "class" property?

[Dale Farnsworth]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> #4 use "compatible"
> 
>   ucc at 2200 {
>         compatible = "fsl,ucc_geth","[official spec],network";
>         model = "UCC";
>         device-id = <3>;
>         reg = <2200 200>;
>         interrupts = <22>;
>         interrupt-parent = < &qeic >;
>         mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
>         local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
>         rx-clock = <19>;
>         tx-clock = <1a>;
>         phy-handle = < &phy3 >;
>         pio-handle = < &pio3 >;
>   };
> 
>   > I don't like this...we are overloading "compatible" with
>   > stuff that is not specifying a programming interface.  compatible
>   > is supposed to be specifying a programming interface which
>   > the device complies to.

If your proposed class property doesn't specify a programming interface,
then I agree that we shouldn't put that info in compatible.  My point
was that compatible is the one and only property that a driver should
look at to find a node with a suitable programming interface.

But, that begs the question: How will the code use your class property?
Another post implied that it's for human-readable purposes.  If that's
all, I'd leave it out, or use a comment instead.

-Dale