So, like, the other day David Gibson mumbled: > At present, the fdt_subnode_offset() and fdt_path_offset() functions > in libfdt require the exact name of the nodes in question be passed, > including unit address. > > This is contrary to traditional OF-like finddevice() behaviour, which > allows the unit address to be omitted (which is useful when the device > name is unambiguous without the address). > > This patch introduces similar behaviour to > fdt_subnode_offset_namelen(), and hence to fdt_subnode_offset() and > fdt_path_offset() which are implemented in terms of the former. The > unit address can be omitted from the given node name. If this is > ambiguous, the first such node in the flattened tree will be selected > (this behaviour is consistent with IEEE1275 which specifies only that > an arbitrary node matching the given information be selected). > > This very small change is then followed by many more diffs which > change the test examples and testcases to exercise this behaviour. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---
Applied. > Jon, I initially considered making this behaviour optional, > i.e. adding a flag to subnode_offset() determining if it needed exact > matches or name-without-address matches. I couldn't see that it was > actually any use, though. Yeah, sounds fine to me too. Thanks, jdl _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
