Re: "memory" binding issues

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.

I guess people prefer to follow ePAPR even though it's broken? That
means someone needs to cleanup the current dts files. Any takers?


-Olof
--
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/