On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Måns Rullgård <mans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. How much of the address is in the name depends on how the address translation is done. I don't think we really need to do full address translations here. %pOn /foo/bar@0 - Node full name %pOn0 bar@0 - Node name and unit address %pOn1 /foo/bar@0[10] - Node full name + phandle %pOn2 /foo/bar@0[10:DdPB] - Node full name + phandle + node flags %pOc vendor,foo-bar - Most significant compatible string We could do phandle and/or node flags as separate specifiers such as %pOf for flags. I'm not proposing implementing all these now, but just want to make sure we have a structure to do so later. Rob -- 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
