On 08/01/2012 03:04 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 08/01/2012 03:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/25/2012 05:34 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> From: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >>> >>> It's quite legitimate for a DT node to specify #size-cells=0. One example >>> is a node that's used to collect a number of non-memory-mapped devices. >>> In that scenario, there may be multiple child nodes with the same name >>> (type) thus necessitating the use of unit addresses in node names, and >>> reg properties: >> >> Does anyone have any comment on this patch? > > No. Looks fine. I'll apply for 3.7 or do you have something that depends > on it?
Great! Given the discussions on this topic before, it sure seemed like no news was bad news here, but I guess not:-) I'm going to add some new device tree content in 3.7 that will rely on this patch to work. However, since it's a new feature/DT-content, I don't think we need to manage the dependency any more than having this and the other patches both show up in 3.7 at some time. Thanks. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
