Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Geert, > >> On Jan 20, 2015, at 17:24 , Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> + Examples: >>>> + >>>> + %pO /foo/bar@0 - Node full name >>>> + %pO0 /foo/bar@0 - Same as above >>>> + %pO1 /foo/bar@0[10] - Node full name + phandle >>>> + %pO2 /foo/bar@0[10:DdPB] - Node full name + phandle + node flags >>>> + D - dynamic >>>> + d - detached >>>> + P - Populated >>>> + B - Populated bus >>> >>> We should think about what else we want to print for a node. Perhaps >>> 'On' for name, 'Oc' for compatible, etc. >> >> I was just going to say "The least verbose variant is name, not full_name”. >> > > Unfortunately in the context of device tree nodes ‘name' is usually > not what you want to print to identify the node in question. ‘name’ is > usually not unique. Name and address without the full path is usually a good compromise between uniqueness (it is usually unique for memory-mapped things) and verbosity. -- Måns Rullgård mans@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
