lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: "memory" binding issues
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
> nodes should be named.

2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflect reg.

2.2.3 says that unit addresses can be omitted.

> Having unit-address whenever the node has a reg property has the nice
> property of eliminating the need to rename any nodes when adding new one.
> (Consider the case that you have one subnode somewhere and you omit the
> unit-address and then you find out that you have to add another subnode
> with the same name, but another reg value.)

This motivation doesn't bother me at all -- it should be relatively rare.


-Olof


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-17 19:21    [W:0.099 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site