On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:33PM -0700, Frank Rowand 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. Certainly the recommendation I've been giving from the early days of ePAPR has been that a node should have a unit address if and only if it has a 'reg' property. -- 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:
pgpHs2grNAW6N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
