On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > We've generally standardized around "label" for things like slots, > > > ports, connectors, etc. that need to be physically identified. > > > > Yes, label would be an option too, probably a better one that aliases. > > > > > "slot-names" it seems hasn't gotten used for FDT. Since there aren't > > > DT's published for OF based systems nor any documentation, newbies > > > like me (that only have 8 years of DT experience) don't have any > > > insight into how things used to be done. > > > > In a pretty much ad-hoc way :-) In this case, though, chip-id is a > > simple solution and works well (and I have the code already written and > > tested :-) > > I want to try to get that stuff upstream. Do you still object to the > chip-id's after our discussion ? The labels aren't that great really... No. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
