> > In fact what you really want to do is transfer the device tree > > (including properties), and create the machine from scratch, not load > > state into a pre-supplied device tree. > > Well, I agree, but that's a lot more of an overhaul, and once again > we're changing the problem.
I think it's you that's changing the problem. The requirement is to uniquely identify a device within a machine. Verifying that this device is that compatible with the device at the same address in a different machine is a separate problem. We should not be trying to encode this information in the canonical device path. Paul
