On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

quoted

quoted

We've generally standardized around "label" for things like slots,
ports, connectors, etc. that need to be physically identified.

Yes, label would be an option too, probably a better one that aliases.

quoted

"slot-names" it seems hasn't gotten used for FDT. Since there aren't
DT's published for OF based systems nor any documentation, newbies
like me (that only have 8 years of DT experience) don't have any
insight into how things used to be done.

In a pretty much ad-hoc way :-) In this case, though, chip-id is a
simple solution and works well (and I have the code already written and
tested :-)

I want to try to get that stuff upstream. Do you still object to the
chip-id's after our discussion ? The labels aren't that great really...

No.

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>