Ah, okay. I wasn't sure if name was optional in your last email.
However, if name is specified does compatible even matter?
Or, on the other hand, is name specific enough? For example; is it still possible to wire up two 82xx chips back to back and have one CPU control both socs? In which case you could end up with 2 identical devices with identical node names in the tree.
If you have one cpu controller things will have different reg props than.
If you have two identical SoCs back-to-back, the soc nodes will have different ranges, but the device nodes themselves will be pretty much identical. You'd need to parse all the ranges properties to get a real physaddr before you as sure to get a unique addr.
True, we probably need an of_translate_addr() equivalent.
Name is one way to distinguish. For a given board you're going to know some level of detail about the setup such that you can choose the best mechanism to match on.
Possibly true; but I am concerned that it just trades one fragile method (strict path) for another (expected differences between nodes for identical devices in the tree)
Yeah, I guess the best one can do is leave it up to the developer to pick the right method. Its not as if we'd get ride of explicit path fixups.
The idea of aliases is looking more and more appealing to me.
- k