On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:44 -1000 Mitch Bradley <w...@firmworks.com> wrote:
[...] > > The "proc_of.c" code that I wrote in Dec 2006 uses the > package-to-path method mentioned above, getting the "n...@addr" > representation (package-to-path returns the full path, but you can > easily extract just the tail component with strrchr(path, '/')) Thanks for the tip. I changed the code: - dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); +// dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); + dp->name = pdt_get_fullname(node); Where pdt_get_fullname() runs package-to-path and returns strrchr(buf, '/')+1; /proc/device-tree looks much better. Here's the diff now between /ofw and /proc/device-tree: http://dev.queued.net/~dilinger/dt2.diff Now I'm wondering a few things; 1) I'm setting node->name to the full node name now (including the "@" suffix). Is there any reason why this might be incorrect (ie, that I should only be using the @ suffix in node->full_name)? It looks fine to me, but it's worth asking... 2) At a later point, it's probably worth looking into changing the sparc code to use this as well. Is there a reason why the sparc code doesn't shouldn't use this (ie, old firmware bugs)? 3) I get the following during proc population: [ 0.126687] device-tree: Duplicate name in /, renamed to "dropin-fs#1" Looking at the diff, I see -/dropin-fs/.node -0000000 ` 222 206 377 -0000004 -/dropin-fs/.node -0000000 ` 222 206 377 Is this a bug in my version of OFW? _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss