[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130917164307.GA31327@quad.lixom.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:43:07 -0700
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
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 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.
> 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 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