Re: "memory" binding issues

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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.
> 
> Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
> 
> I guess people prefer to follow ePAPR even though it's broken? That
> means someone needs to cleanup the current dts files. Any takers?

FWIW, I investigated enhancing dtc to enforce this rule. Here are the
results:

********** TEST SUMMARY
*     Total testcases:	1446
*                PASS:	1252
*                FAIL:	58
*   Bad configuration:	136
* Strange test result:	0
**********

That's just in dtc itself, and not any of the *.dts in the kernel or
U-Boot source trees...

I'll see how much of patch it takes to fix up all the test-cases in dtc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html