Re: "memory" binding issues

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:33PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 2.2.3 is talking about path names.
> 
> 2.2.1.1 is talking about node names.
> 
> 2.2.1.1 _does_ require the unit address in the node name, 2.2.3 does not
> remove that requirement.

Certainly the recommendation I've been giving from the early days of
ePAPR has been that a node should have a unit address if and only if
it has a 'reg' property.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature