On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it. > > I guess people prefer to follow ePAPR even though it's broken? That > means someone needs to cleanup the current dts files. Any takers? I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least consistent. Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base for further work. (Also at least something written down that people can learn from and/or refer to.) Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
