Re: "memory" binding issues

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what 
> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how 
> nodes should be named.

2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflect reg.

2.2.3 says that unit addresses can be omitted.

> Having unit-address whenever the node has a reg property has the nice 
> property of eliminating the need to rename any nodes when adding new one. 
> (Consider the case that you have one subnode somewhere and you omit the 
> unit-address and then you find out that you have to add another subnode 
> with the same name, but another reg value.)

This motivation doesn't bother me at all -- it should be relatively rare.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/