Re: "memory" binding issues

[David Gibson]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> FWIW, I investigated enhancing dtc to enforce this rule. Here are the
> results:
> 
> ********** TEST SUMMARY
> *     Total testcases:	1446
> *                PASS:	1252
> *                FAIL:	58
> *   Bad configuration:	136
> * Strange test result:	0
> **********
> 
> That's just in dtc itself, and not any of the *.dts in the kernel or
> U-Boot source trees...

Uh.. yeah.  The trees in the dtc testsuite are rather contrived and
not good examples of device trees in general.  They're really purely
examples of dts syntax, and don't at all resemble typical dt contents.

> I'll see how much of patch it takes to fix up all the test-cases in dtc.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature