On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:03:05 +0300 , Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +Device tree nodes: > > + > > + %pOn[fnpPcCFr] > > + > > + For printing device tree nodes. The optional arguments are: > > + f device node full_name > > + n device node name > > + p device node phandle > > + P device node path spec (name + @unit) > > + F device node flags > > + c major compatible string > > + C full compatible string > > + Without any arguments prints full_name (same as %pOnf) > > + The separator when using multiple arguments is â??:â?? > ^ separator is â??.' > > + > > > + Examples: > > + > > + %pOn /foo/bar@0 - Node full name > > + %pOnf /foo/bar@0 - Same as above > > + %pOnfp /foo/bar@0:10 - Node full name + phandle > > + %pOnfcF /foo/bar@0:foo,device:--P- - Node full name + > > + major compatible string + > > + node flags > > + D - dynamic > > + d - detached > > + P - Populated > > + B - Populated bus > > + Thinking about this more, I'd like to suggest a different format that gives us a nice hack on the name that makes it easy to remember: '%pOF[...]' 'O' still means 'object', but it is also overloaded for Open Firmware. That still leaves %pO? for other object types. What do you think? g. -- 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
