[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMh0F09OAR4bepGSCE5Z5OZ56fBmDPBSfwZ+NB9RgcE0Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:15:52 -0700
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: frowand.list@...il.com
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
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 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> 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@...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