From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:36:42 -0500 Subject: [RFC] [PATCH] ARM: tegra: emc: device tree bindings In-Reply-To: References: <1318873976-25335-1-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF173CA2CBFB@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF173CA2CC18@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF173CA2CCA9@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <4E9E3801.6080707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E9EE07A.20301@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/18/2011 10:28 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 10/18/2011 04:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> I only suggested the well-known-named sub-nodes in order to eliminate >>> the need for a compatible property. >>> >>> My inclination is that if we use compatible to distinguish the tables >>> from anything else, there's little point having the extra level of nodes; >>> we may as well lay it out as in your original patch, just with an explicit >>> nvidia,ram-code property in each table (or omitted/ignored when not using >>> it) instead of reg? >> >> Node names should be generic like serial or ethernet. Compatible is used >> to specify the specific model. > > In cases where unit addresses can be used to separate out identical > entries, yes. For something like this, there's no logical addressing > of the tables so something else must be used to distinguish them. Using the frequency as was previously proposed would work assuming that is unique. Rob