Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
>>> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
>>>
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> Markus Armbr
On 06/01/2010 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Luiz Capitulino writes:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
Luiz Capitulino writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
We need Device IDs to be unique and not
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
>> > Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >
>> >> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
>> >> nodes can always be
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>
> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> > Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> >> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
> >> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
>> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
>>
>> We already have some protection against duplicate IDs, but it got
>>