From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:14:31 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] fdt_find_compatible_node() and friends
In-Reply-To: <4639F61F.2050506@grandegger.com>
References: <4639F61F.2050506@grandegger.com>
Message-ID: <4639FC57.8080403@smiths-aerospace.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> before re-coding fdt_find_compatible_node(), some more comments.
> 
> After browsing more carefully the FDT related code of "arch/powerpc"
> I think we also need, apart from fdt_find_compatible_node() and
> fdt_path_offset(), fdt_find_node_by_type() and maybe 
> fdt_find_node_by_name(). These functions do a sequential scan of all 
> devices starting at the beginning or after a specified node. They 
> actually ignore the hierarchy. Do you agree?
> BTW: any reason why not using the more compatible name 
> fdt_find_node_by_path() for fdt_path_offset()?
> 
> Wolfgang.

Hi WolfganG,

I'm not an expert, I just fake it on email ;-).  With that disclaimer, I 
would agree with you WRT all the "find" functions.  The original libfdt 
code does not support any "find" functions, so we will need to add them.

WRT to fdt_find_node_by_path() vs. fdt_path_offset(), I vaguely recall 
some renames happening in the kernel source, but I cannot find them so 
my memory likely is faulty[1].  I would be strongly in favor of 
following the kernel's lead and renaming that function since we are 
already divergent from the original libfdt.  The kernel's name is a much 
better description.

Best regards,
gvb

[1] My mind is like a steel trap... unfortunately its been soaking it in 
beer for years now.