[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379375239.3721.51.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:47:19 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: "memory" binding issues
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> > address.
>
> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
> needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name.
>
> If there are no ambiguities, then leaving off the unit address is much
> preferred.
I disagree :-)
Also this would be only true of our find_node_by_path was capable of
handling it, which it isn't. Thus you end up with generic code looking
for /memory and finding nothing ...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists