David Gibson wrote: > Actually, no - sorry, that's the other problem with this, which I > forgot to mention. On real OF, the "name" property contains the > node's name *without the unit address*; that is, only the portion > before the '@'. So your getprop change does not match real OF > behaviour - and real OF behaviour will not do what you want for > dt_get_path().
Ah, OK. > Actually, in any case, I don't think we want to implement get_path() > this way for real OF. Better to have get_path() itself as a callback: > on real OF I believe we can directly ask for the full path to a given > phandle, the get name based implementation can then be made specific > to the flat device tree. > > Or actually, I think we might be able to come up with a get_path() > implementation for flat tree that's less hideous than repeatedly > calling get_parent() which is an ugly, ugly operation on the flat tree It's likely to be ugly no matter what, though I'll try to come up with something slightly nicer. If I were doing this code from scratch, I'd probably liven the tree first and reflatten it to pass to the kernel. > (and will get worse with libfdt). Why is that? >>Plus, something might come along that needs to dynamically look for >>either name or something else. It's more flexible this way. > > Hrm... "something might come along" just seems contrived to me. Well, I generally prefer doing things the more flexible way in the absence of a good reason not to. OF returning the bare name is a good reason not to. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
