> On 6 Jun 2023, at 21:29, Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garh...@amd.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 6/5/23 12:12 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 02/06/2023 01:48, Vikram Garhwal wrote:
>>> Add device_tree_find_node_by_path() to find a matching node with path for a
>> 
>> AFAICT, the only difference in name between the new function and the 
>> existing one is "device_tree" vs "dt". The latter is just a shorthand of 
>> "device tree", so it feels to me the name are a bit too similar.
>> 
>> From my understanding, the main difference between the two functions are 
>> that the current one is starting from root whereas the current one is 
>> starting from a given node. So how about "dt_find_node_by_path_from()"?
> Thank you for the suggestion. This name was added in v3 as Luca Fancellu 
> suggested to rename this function to "device_tree_find_node_by_path". I am 
> okay with renaming it to dt_find_node_by_path_from().
> 
> Luca, Michal and Henry: Does the dt_find_node_by_path_from() name works for 
> you?

Sure, go for it!

Cheers,
Luca

Reply via email to