From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:48:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 17/38] ARM: orion5x: use node labels for UART and
 SATA on edmini_v2
In-Reply-To: <20140423124626.GB1797@arch.cereza>
References: <1398202002-28530-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <1398202002-28530-18-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <5357A2BA.1050900@gmail.com> <20140423142334.286c57c0@skate>
 <20140423124626.GB1797@arch.cereza>
Message-ID: <20140423144844.240eba8e@skate>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Dear Ezequiel Garcia,

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:46:26 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

> > I continue to have mixed feelings about the usage of node labels. To
> > me, it breaks the "tree" nature of the Device Tree, by turning it into
> > just a bunch of &bleh { ... } long list of statements. But this is
> > purely subjective (just like your opinion, I believe), and I wanted to
> > move forward with this, so I just did what was necessary :-)
> > 
> 
> Let me try to convince you a little :) Regressions like this would never
> appear with proper usage of phandles:
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg322999.html
> 
> This may be a matter of taste, but when I'm on the devicetree "user" side,
> I really don't care if the USB0 is part of some super complex tree, but just
> want to enable it in my board. Writing:
> 
> &usb0 {
> 	status = "okay";
> };
> 
> seems to be just fine.

Yes, yes, for sure I do understand this argument. Quite certainly, if I
decided to make the change to use phandles all over the place, it's
probably because I thought that there were some valid arguments
being given ;-)

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com