Re: "memory" binding issues

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
> consistent.
> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
> for
> > further work. (Also at least something written down that people can
> learn
> > from and/or refer to.)
> 
> So, I stand corrected. It seems that at least one legacy system I'm
> looking at always specifies unit address as well. I don't like it but
> I'll stop arguing.
> 
> Ben: The interesting part is that it does _not_ specify it on /memory
> though. Nor, of course, on /cpus or /openprom. So assuming /memory@0
> exists will break even on some powerpc platforms.

What system is that out of curiosity ? Also make sure it's not just
Linux being an idiot and stripping the @0 in /proc/device-tree ...

(I think some old versions of /proc code would strip it)

Or is that some insanely broken OF like Apple old world or Pegasos ?

If it's just embedded .dts files, yes, I fixed some, but we might still
have some bad ones. 

In any case, we all agree, the right thing to do first is to fix our
path parser to cope either way.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/