Re: olpc ofw question

[Andres Salomon <dilinger-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:44 -1000
Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

[...]
> 
> The "proc_of.c" code that I wrote in Dec 2006 uses the
> package-to-path method mentioned above, getting the "name@addr"
> representation (package-to-path returns the full path, but you can
> easily extract just the tail component with strrchr(path, '/'))


Thanks for the tip.  I changed the code:

-       dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name");
+//     dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name");
+       dp->name = pdt_get_fullname(node);

Where pdt_get_fullname() runs package-to-path and returns
strrchr(buf, '/')+1; /proc/device-tree looks much better.
Here's the diff now between /ofw and /proc/device-tree:

http://dev.queued.net/~dilinger/dt2.diff

Now I'm wondering a few things;

1) I'm setting node->name to the full node name now (including
the "@" suffix).  Is there any reason why this might be incorrect
(ie, that I should only be using the @ suffix in node->full_name)?
It looks fine to me, but it's worth asking...

2) At a later point, it's probably worth looking into changing
the sparc code to use this as well.  Is there a reason why the
sparc code doesn't shouldn't use this (ie, old firmware bugs)?

3) I get the following during proc population:

[    0.126687] device-tree: Duplicate name in /, renamed to "dropin-fs#1"

Looking at the diff, I see

-/dropin-fs/.node
-0000000   ` 222 206 377
-0000004
-/dropin-fs/.node
-0000000   ` 222 206 377

Is this a bug in my version of OFW?