[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cca41061129f4378bfd41a66c8eb71e1@svr-chch-ex1.atlnz.lc>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:24:46 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 4/5] arm: mvebu: Add device tree for 98DX3236 SoCs
On 27/01/17 04:10, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> + internal-regs {
[snip]
>> +
>> + dfx-registers {
> node label
>
[snip]
>> + switch {
> node label
>
These are peers to the internal-regs, i.e. parts of the SoC with
mappable windows in the address space. Do they really need a label?
Their subnodes absolutely need (and have) labels.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists