Re: "memory" binding issues

[Frank Rowand]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/