From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:43:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 6/6] ARM: dts: STiH407: Add B2120 board support In-Reply-To: References: <1394614210-15698-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <1394614210-15698-7-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <20140520072048.GC20874@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20140520074353.GD20874@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > >> > + soc { > >> > + sbc_serial0: serial at 9530000 { > >> > + status = "okay"; > >> > + }; > >> > >> You might want to consider reference-based syntax here instead, so you > >> don't have to mimic the hierarchy. That'd be (at the root level of the > >> file, below this secion: > >> > >> &sbc_serial0: { > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > > > > I'm personally not keen on this scheme. It's sometimes helpful to know > > the hierarchy and I don't think it's a large overhead to format the > > subordinate DTS files in this way. > > > > Please consider not enforcing this. > > Definitely not enforcing it, and I didn't use to like it either but it > has some real upsides. > > In particular, it saves a lot of grief when you're changing something > like the unit-id of a node in .dtsi and forget to do the same update > in the dts. I'm not entirely sure what a unit-id is, but I can see that there would be benefits to using the referenced-based syntax as you call it. If any of those benefits hold true here I won't push back, but I would personally like to see us default to the hierarchical scheme. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] ARM: dts: STiH407: Add B2120 board support Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:43:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20140520074353.GD20874@lee--X1> References: <1394614210-15698-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <1394614210-15698-7-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <20140520072048.GC20874@lee--X1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Maxime COQUELIN , Rob Landley , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Russell King , Srinivas Kandagatla , Stuart Menefy , Linus Walleij , Giuseppe Cavallaro , "linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "kernel-F5mvAk5X5gdBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > >> > + soc { > >> > + sbc_serial0: serial@9530000 { > >> > + status =3D "okay"; > >> > + }; > >> > >> You might want to consider reference-based syntax here instead, so= you > >> don't have to mimic the hierarchy. That'd be (at the root level of= the > >> file, below this secion: > >> > >> &sbc_serial0: { > >> status =3D "okay"; > >> }; > > > > I'm personally not keen on this scheme. It's sometimes helpful to = know > > the hierarchy and I don't think it's a large overhead to format the > > subordinate DTS files in this way. > > > > Please consider not enforcing this. >=20 > Definitely not enforcing it, and I didn't use to like it either but i= t > has some real upsides. >=20 > In particular, it saves a lot of grief when you're changing something > like the unit-id of a node in .dtsi and forget to do the same update > in the dts. I'm not entirely sure what a unit-id is, but I can see that there would be benefits to using the referenced-based syntax as you call it. If any of those benefits hold true here I won't push back, but I would personally like to see us default to the hierarchical scheme. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752340AbaETHoF (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 03:44:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]:44479 "EHLO mail-ig0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751008AbaETHoC (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 03:44:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:43:53 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Olof Johansson Cc: Maxime COQUELIN , Rob Landley , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Russell King , Srinivas Kandagatla , Stuart Menefy , Linus Walleij , Giuseppe Cavallaro , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kernel@stlinux.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] ARM: dts: STiH407: Add B2120 board support Message-ID: <20140520074353.GD20874@lee--X1> References: <1394614210-15698-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <1394614210-15698-7-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@st.com> <20140520072048.GC20874@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >> > + soc { > >> > + sbc_serial0: serial@9530000 { > >> > + status = "okay"; > >> > + }; > >> > >> You might want to consider reference-based syntax here instead, so you > >> don't have to mimic the hierarchy. That'd be (at the root level of the > >> file, below this secion: > >> > >> &sbc_serial0: { > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > > > > I'm personally not keen on this scheme. It's sometimes helpful to know > > the hierarchy and I don't think it's a large overhead to format the > > subordinate DTS files in this way. > > > > Please consider not enforcing this. > > Definitely not enforcing it, and I didn't use to like it either but it > has some real upsides. > > In particular, it saves a lot of grief when you're changing something > like the unit-id of a node in .dtsi and forget to do the same update > in the dts. I'm not entirely sure what a unit-id is, but I can see that there would be benefits to using the referenced-based syntax as you call it. If any of those benefits hold true here I won't push back, but I would personally like to see us default to the hierarchical scheme. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog