> >> >> > + soc {
> >> >> > + sbc_serial0: serial@9530000 {
> >> >> > + status = "okay";
> >> >> > + };
> >> >>
> >> >> You might want to consider reference-based syntax here instead, so you
> >> >> don't have to mimic the hierarchy. That'd be (at the root level of the
> >> >> file, below this secion:
> >> >>
> >> >> &sbc_serial0: {
> >> >> status = "okay";
> >> >> };
> >> >
> >> > I'm personally not keen on this scheme. It's sometimes helpful to know
> >> > the hierarchy and I don't think it's a large overhead to format the
> >> > subordinate DTS files in this way.
> >> >
> >> > Please consider not enforcing this.
> >>
> >> Definitely not enforcing it, and I didn't use to like it either but it
> >> has some real upsides.
> >>
> >> In particular, it saves a lot of grief when you're changing something
> >> like the unit-id of a node in .dtsi and forget to do the same update
> >> in the dts.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what a unit-id is, but I can see that there
> > would be benefits to using the referenced-based syntax as you call
> > it. If any of those benefits hold true here I won't push back, but I
> > would personally like to see us default to the hierarchical scheme.
>
> Sorry, I meant unit-address. I.e. the portion that goes behind the @
> in the node name.
Ah yes, makes sense now, thanks.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
