On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) So, I stand corrected. It seems that at least one legacy system I'm looking at always specifies unit address as well. I don't like it but I'll stop arguing. Ben: The interesting part is that it does _not_ specify it on /memory though. Nor, of course, on /cpus or /openprom. So assuming /memory@0 exists will break even on some powerpc platforms. -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
