From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:58:29 +0200
Subject: Duplicate labels in dts files
In-Reply-To: <20120519025632.GD5427@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
References: <4FB6B896.3090904@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20120519025632.GD5427@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <4FBA11C5.4070604@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 05/19/2012 04:56 AM, Shawn Guo :
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 03:01:10PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> The following arch/arm/boot/dts/*.dts all have duplicate label
>> definitions, albeit all duplicates pointing at the same node. Is this
>> expected?
> 
> At least for IMX, I would say, yes.
> 
> For example, when I have the following node in imx53.dtsi and need to
> have it in imx53-ard.dts, the first line of the node definition will
> be naturally copied into imx53-ard.dts.  As the result, the label
> "uart1" will be "duplicated".
> 
> 	uart1: serial at 53fbc000 {
> 		...
> 	};

Well, for AT91, I would say it is intended.
As explained by Shawn, The node definition is simply copied.

>> This does work OK with the in-kernel dtc and latest mainline
>> dtc, but triggered some error-checks in a dtc patch that I have locally,
>> which allows node/property deletion. I think the duplicate labels should
>> probably be removed - do you agree?
>>
> I hardly think so.  You probably would agree that we shouldn't say
> the node is duplicated, since the node will still be one in dtb.
> Then, as long as the label points to the same node, we should not say
> the label is duplicated either.

I agree with Shawn: If the node definition is not copied literally
(including the label), I fear that DT newbies will not understand the
meaning of this. Moreover, it would be harder to manage includes and
nodes definitions (while creating a board file out of a SoC file for
example).

So, please keep the in-kernel dtc behavior.

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre