From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:07:34 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fsi: Add optional chip-id to CFAMs In-Reply-To: References: <20180622043756.21158-1-benh@kernel.crashing.org> <20180703193017.GA23230@rob-hp-laptop> <23be30ebb2c661ef304c78a85cff591c515ba65b.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Message-ID: List-Id: To: linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > We've generally standardized around "label" for things like slots, > > ports, connectors, etc. that need to be physically identified. > > Yes, label would be an option too, probably a better one that aliases. > > > "slot-names" it seems hasn't gotten used for FDT. Since there aren't > > DT's published for OF based systems nor any documentation, newbies > > like me (that only have 8 years of DT experience) don't have any > > insight into how things used to be done. > > In a pretty much ad-hoc way :-) In this case, though, chip-id is a > simple solution and works well (and I have the code already written and > tested :-) I want to try to get that stuff upstream. Do you still object to the chip-id's after our discussion ? The labels aren't that great really... Cheers, Ben.