From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: "memory" binding issues Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:47:19 +1000 Message-ID: <1379375239.3721.51.camel@pasglop> References: <1379300274.4098.77.camel@pasglop> <52372F2A.2050003@wwwdotorg.org> <1379371567.3721.46.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Stephen Warren , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux Kernel list , Marek Szyprowski , Stephen Warren , Rob Herring , Grant Likely List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit > > address. > > No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if > needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name. > > If there are no ambiguities, then leaving off the unit address is much > preferred. I disagree :-) Also this would be only true of our find_node_by_path was capable of handling it, which it isn't. Thus you end up with generic code looking for /memory and finding nothing ... Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html