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 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
    > 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.

    2.2.3 is talking about path names.

    2.2.1.1 is talking about node names.

    2.2.1.1 _does_ require the unit address in the node name, 2.2.3 does not
    remove that requirement.

    -Frank

    >
    >> 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
    > --
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-09-17 23:21    [W:4.421 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site