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. -Frank > >> 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 > -- 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
