Moi, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On ACPI based systems the resulting strings look like > > > > > > > > > > \_SB.PCI0.CIO2.port@1.endpoint@0 > > > > > > > > > > where the nodes are separated by a dot (".") and the first three are > > > > > ACPI device nodes and the latter two ACPI data nodes. > > > > > > > > Do we support swnode here? > > > > > > Good question. The swnodes have no hierarchy at the moment (they're only > > > created for a struct device as a parent) and they do not have > > > human-readable > > > names. So I'd say it's not relevant right now. Should these two change, > > > support for swnode could (and should) be added later on. > > > > Heikki, what do you think about this? > > Well, the swnodes do have hierarchy. That was kind of the whole point > of introducing them. They now can also be named using "name" property. > See commit 344798206f171c5abea7ab1f9762fa526d7f539d.
Right; I saw the function after initially replying to Andy but I missed where the node name came from. :-) Now I know... I can add support for swnode, too, if you like. -- Terveisin, Sakari Ailus sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com