From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:02:45 +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> <20140520074353.GD20874@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20140521100245.GI6679@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. > > Sorry, I meant unit-address. I.e. the portion that goes behind the @ > in the node name. Ah yes, makes sense now, thanks. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog