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