On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:43PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Moi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On ACPI based systems the resulting strings look like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \_SB.PCI0.CIO2.port@1.endpoint@0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > where the nodes are separated by a dot (".") and the first three are
> > > > > > ACPI device nodes and the latter two ACPI data nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we support swnode here?
> > > >
> > > > Good question. The swnodes have no hierarchy at the moment (they're only
> > > > created for a struct device as a parent) and they do not have human-readable
> > > > names. So I'd say it's not relevant right now. Should these two change,
> > > > support for swnode could (and should) be added later on.
> > >
> > > Heikki, what do you think about this?
> >
> > Well, the swnodes do have hierarchy. That was kind of the whole point
> > of introducing them. They now can also be named using "name" property.
> > See commit 344798206f171c5abea7ab1f9762fa526d7f539d.
>
> Right; I saw the function after initially replying to Andy but I missed
> where the node name came from. :-) Now I know...
>
> I can add support for swnode, too, if you like.
It's up to you.
thanks,
--
heikki
