On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:56:53AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:

On 10/25/2011 12:19 AM, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

In general, I'm inclined to accept this patch as we talked about at
plumbers.  However, this particular hunk gives me pause as there is
still the objection that Russell raised about the (ab)use of r->name
for insert the resource name.

So, no I won't reject this patch, but I first what to have some idea
of what the plan is to migrate away from using r->name.  Perhaps we
can talk about this tomorrow.

OK, sure, let's discuss about that.
But I still think that Russell's concern is not related at all with
this patch. That means that it should be fixed separately if needed.
It can be done before or after, but this is somehow orthogonal to
the DT reg-names support problem.

Right, but this patch does add more infrastructure code manuipulating
that field, so I'd like to have a plan for fixing the problem before
committing this.

g.