On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Jason R Thorpe wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:18:04AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
>  > Uhm, I think that Jason changed that recently. Pseudo-devices now all
>  > attach under a pseudo-device-parent node, which is under the root node.
>
> No, not all pseudo-devices have a pseudo-device-parent node:
>
> 	1. Not even all pseudo-devices appear in the device tree; only
> 	   ones which need to have children do.

I think we should put them all in the tree. It'll let us keep track of
what is and isn't in the system.

> 	2. The parent of pseudo-devices that are in the device tree is
> 	   ROOT.  It would be fine with me to change it to PSEUDO (and
> 	   define such a value, obviously), but then you'd need to make
> 	   sure that all the places that test for ROOT also test for
> 	   PSEUDO.

Why not make a PSEUDO node under ROOT, and put all pseudo devices under
that? That way it's obvious that it's a pseudo device.

Take care,

Bill