> The 'label' thing is actually one of the things that I'm seriously > considering skipping parsing if this is an ACPI system, simply because > best practices are different today than they were when the OF bindings > were created. Agreed. We want the ACPI binding to learn from what has worked and not worked in DT. We should clean up some of the historical mess. And enforce things we don't in DT simply because there is too much history. So a straight one to one conversion is not going to happen. > It can be debated what exactly is at fault there, although one > interpretation can be that the DT bindings themselves are to blame, > for describing a circular dependency between a parent and a child. DT describes hardware. I'm not sure hardware can have a circular dependency. It is more about how software make use of that hardware description that ends up in circular dependencies. Andrew
