From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: case sensitivity for devicetree node names Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:29:35 -0700 Message-ID: <575F963F.8090105@gmail.com> References: <575B1D84.2010703@gmail.com> <20160614011021.GD4882@voom.fritz.box> <575F7FC1.5040508@gmail.com> <20160614051028.GL4882@voom.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bp+QQU68OwMdmFOvTTPiSm8lRIyFym1tkf6pwdI9hGQ=; b=t+xHByM20Tp2lIvvDqxRmVDufqXN5aoxugGOYbU0PQvn+527aKNzF252GbOJLfQYNn /AMWzhZUDBD8pgA4mx5rVmgoT779sGM2E028rLGITPxlPQXCbOEOOXs2iYwLVzRJzM65 UTi4np++omGR045tlK/0HNd+v4j3i31jTXRw8ShughZBu6YKa2mDsd5BQYDm/s7Y0XfQ N0vQw5nTQOwKFLXD3CySU8AU6DrHJgyMBMMcYrvQ4RNdz491hGHQhcXh8z4LQ/pILZao fxd7AcvXIqmYHKGwFak0pb8MZg8XfhAM5SmrXgooHDO3TsQg+w2QeyI2CfwFP8OAb/7g 6X3w== In-Reply-To: <20160614051028.GL4882-RXTfZT5YzpxwFLYp8hBm2A@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-spec-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Gibson Cc: Rob Herring , Grant Likely , "devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" On 06/13/16 22:10, David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:53:37PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 06/13/16 18:10, David Gibson wrote: < snip > >>> Here's my inclination for how to treat this in dtc for the time being: >>> 1) Leave the bulk of dtc case sensitive, as now >>> 2) Add a new check which will generate an error if there are node >>> names which differ only in case. >>> >>> Any objections to that plan? >> >> I think that the kernel should match the current behavior of dtc. >> >> I agree with "1)". >> >> I don't think that "2)" is required. I think it is a really dumb idea for >> anyone to create a dts with node names that differ only in case. But I >> don't think it is the compiler's job to protect people from being dumb. >> An analogue would be the C language and compilers. The C compiler doesn't >> error on a program that has variables "foo" and "Foo". > > Hmm.. actually I think protecting you from being dumb is exactly the > purpose of compiler warnings. Now that you found that quote from > 1275, which is pretty definitive as far as I'm concerned, I'd expect > to reduce that error to a warning (by default). A warning is ok by me. -Frank