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 devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
