> -----Original Message----- > From: David Gibson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:11 PM > To: Kumar Gala > Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss > Subject: Re: generating a phandle w/libfdt? > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:47:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2008, at 7:04 PM, David Gibson wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:15:38AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 6:40 PM, David Gibson wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:29:21AM -0700, Yoder Stuart wrote: > [snip] > >>> What if we just have it do that if we have a > "linux,phandle" property > >>> w/o a value in the .dts? > >> > >> Hrm. Normally that would create a property named > "linux,phandle" with > >> a zero-length value. I'm disinclined to special case this. > > > > Why? linux,phandle is already special. What does it mean if a > > linux,phandle has no value? > > Well, making existing notation mean something different for this > property seems to me a different order of special casing than > auto-creating the property if it's not present to start with. > > You know, I am inclined to make: > linux,phandle = < &thisnode >; > the approved way of doing this. I *think* that will already work, but > if not we can fix it. The circular reference is slightly odd, but it > is self-consistent. I suppose we could still come up with a further > shorthand so it's not necessary to make a label for a node to do this > ('&.' or something for 'reference-to-containing-node').
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this _does_ work and is what we did in the DTS to get phandles generated for nodes that were going to be referenced by nodes dynamically created later. Stuart _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
