Hi Michal, On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:39:25AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > On 06. 12. 20 23:46, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >> Add label which is used by bootloader for adding bootloader specific flag. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> U-Boot needs to add u-boot,dm-pre-reloc; property > > > > I'm not entirely sure what best practice rules are in this area, but > > shouldn't U-Boot locate the node by name instead of label ? > > Labels are not listed in dt binding and there are two approaches how to > reference nodes. Via full path with node name or via labels. > I do normally use labels which are much simple. Note that labels require the DTB to be compiled with the -@ option, otherwise they're not present in the binary. > And also if you take a look how dtb looks like (convert back to dts) you > can see that for example aliases are using full path (just &label) but > clocks/gic which is the part of <> is handled via phandles as numbers. > > And labels names can vary and shouldn't be the part of binding doc as > far as I know. But I can be wrong of course. The DT bindings should document the interface with the operating system, and if applicable, the boot loader. If the boot loader requires a particular label, then it becomes part of the ABI, and I think it should be documented in the bindings. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
