From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: "memory" binding issues Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:43:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20130917164307.GA31327@quad.lixom.net> References: <1379300274.4098.77.camel@pasglop> <1379371567.3721.46.camel@pasglop> <1815499.tpfeUKmP6V@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1815499.tpfeUKmP6V@flatron> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , 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 Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what > Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how > nodes should be named. 2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflect reg. 2.2.3 says that unit addresses can be omitted. > Having unit-address whenever the node has a reg property has the nice > property of eliminating the need to rename any nodes when adding new one. > (Consider the case that you have one subnode somewhere and you omit the > unit-address and then you find out that you have to add another subnode > with the same name, but another reg value.) This motivation doesn't bother me at all -- it should be relatively rare. -Olof -- 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