From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755097Ab3CZK4v (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:56:51 -0400 Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.242]:60451 "EHLO eusmtp01.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751251Ab3CZK4u (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:56:50 -0400 Message-ID: <51517EEB.7030709@atmel.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:56:43 +0100 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Olof Johansson , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , Maxime Ripard , linux-arm-kernel , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.9-rc #2 References: <51517592.5010300@atmel.com> <201303261022.39882.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201303261022.39882.arnd@arndb.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.161.30.18] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/26/2013 11:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann : > On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> Another "fixes" pull-request for AT91 on top of material that you have already >> taken. Fixes are manly typos but the bad node declaration and some misspelling >> can cause confusion. > > Hi Nicolas, > > I'd prefer to take only fixes for serious bugs into 3.9 now, since I have > already sent the fixes for -rc5. As far as I can tell, the macb node patch > is the only one that falls into that category Yes, fine, I stack them for 3.10 then. > , but for that one, I'd > prefer if it could be redone in a simpler way, by replacing > > + ahb { > + apb { > + macb0: ethernet@f802c000 { > + phy-mode = "rmii"; > + status = "okay"; > + }; > + }; > + }; > > > with > > @macb0 { > phy-mode = "rmii"; > status = "okay"; > } > > as there is no need to provide the full path when you already have > a label for the device. Indeed, at first sight its looks like a nice solution. But I wonder if we add several nodes in this kind of .dtsi files, we may end up with mess between APB peripherals and board specific ones like leds, NAND, etc. Moreover, the plain and full naming of the node makes it identifiable without doubts, even someone not completely familiar with DT. I slightly prefer to keep it like this, but I can still change my mind ;-) Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre