On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:35:15AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi all, > > Using "fragment@N" as node name for overlay fragments violates unit > address rules: > > <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /fragment@0 has a unit name, but no reg property Hm, regardless of this patch, that's really a bug in the checks not to handle overlays as a different case. The quick fix would be to just suppress that check if an __overlay__ subnode exists. THe more ambitious approach would be to actually parse things that look like overlays into their components and apply checks separately to each fragment (except for ones that don't make sense except on a fully resolved tree). I had plans for that, but am unlikely to get time to work on it any time soon. > This patch series (for dtc) fixes: > 1. generation of node names when using overlay sugar syntax, > 2. all documentation and tests. > > If this is accepted, I'll send similar patches for Linux. > > Note that I've been using "fragment-N" in hand-written DT overlays for > years, so this is known to work fine with Linux. Existing tools expecting the @ would be my only concern with this. You've check Linux is ok, and I've checked libfdt is ok too. I'm not really confident if that's enough to call it everything we care about. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
