From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric@anholt.net (Eric Anholt) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:39:54 -0800 Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt/bindings: serial: bcm2835: add binding documentation for bcm2835-aux-uart In-Reply-To: <4799423.86Gz9JKjiK@wuerfel> References: <1452344854-2576-1-git-send-email-kernel@martin.sperl.org> <4288762.bCLxQBDvy4@wuerfel> <6035A0DD-AD61-48F7-B641-272BB23F3CD8@martin.sperl.org> <4799423.86Gz9JKjiK@wuerfel> Message-ID: <87y4bacimd.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Monday 11 January 2016 14:57:46 Martin Sperl wrote: >> > On 11.01.2016, at 13:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > >> > Please just add another patch to rename the existing uarts appropriately >> > first, then add this one on top with the correct name. >> >> I can do that with the next incarnation of the patch. >> >> But would that not break dt-source files, that refer to uart0? >> Is this not considered an API change as well or does this only apply >> to the binary files? > > To clarify: I meant you should change the node name, not the label. > > The label is not part of the dtb data that gets passed to the kernel > and can have any value, including "uart0". > > The node name is part of the dtb and should follow common naming > conventions (per ePAPR), but the kernel doesn't actually care, so > it won't break anything. > > There are cases where a bootloader relies on a particular node name > in order to find a device node and patch its properties, but I don't > think this is the case here. Confirmed, the booloader source I have doesn't do anything with uart nodes. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: