On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, 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? FWIW, I investigated enhancing dtc to enforce this rule. Here are the results: ********** TEST SUMMARY * Total testcases: 1446 * PASS: 1252 * FAIL: 58 * Bad configuration: 136 * Strange test result: 0 ********** That's just in dtc itself, and not any of the *.dts in the kernel or U-Boot source trees... I'll see how much of patch it takes to fix up all the test-cases in dtc. -- 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
