Re: "memory" binding issues

[Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > 2.2.3 is talking about path names.
> > 
> > 2.2.1.1 is talking about node names.
> > 
> > 2.2.1.1 _does_ require the unit address in the node name, 2.2.3 does
> > not remove that requirement.
> 
> Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
> 
> I guess people prefer to follow ePAPR even though it's broken? That
> means someone needs to cleanup the current dts files. Any takers?

I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least consistent. 
Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base for 
further work. (Also at least something written down that people can learn 
from and/or refer to.)

Best regards,
Tomasz