On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:40 PM, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:41:22PM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > [... snip ...] >> > >> > Does this remove the need for the proposed patch, or am I still >> > missing something? >> >> ... nope. Apparently I never tested this with this particular dtc(1) >> and instead just assumed it did the same as ours- allocate phandle >> sparsely, even with -@. That certainly removes the need for this >> patch, and I'm somewhat upset that I hadn't previously considered >> this. > > Ah! Sorry, I'd forgotten about that behaviour of -@. > >> @David, Jon: Please disregard all of the patches along these lines... >> I'll fix this in our dtc, where it should be fixed. > > Ok :). Heh, sorry for the flip-flop, but this might have been premature. I'm still trying to decide based on Frank's responses if it's really a bad idea to support this in libfdt, given that I don't think we have any intention of supporting such a thing on a running devicetree. It would certainly help if there were some spec mandating that all nodes eligible for cross-referencing have a phandle, but even [1] (albeit recently published) doesn't have a strong position on this. [1] https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/download/v0.2/devicetree-specification-v0.2.pdf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
