generating a phandle w/libfdt?

[Yoder Stuart]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Gibson [mailto:david at gibson.dropbear.id.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:11 PM
> To: Kumar Gala
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss
> Subject: Re: generating a phandle w/libfdt?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:47:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 2008, at 7:04 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:15:38AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>> On Oct 26, 2008, at 6:40 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:29:21AM -0700, Yoder Stuart wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> What if we just have it do that if we have a 
> "linux,phandle" property
> >>> w/o a value in the .dts?
> >>
> >> Hrm.  Normally that would create a property named 
> "linux,phandle" with
> >> a zero-length value.  I'm disinclined to special case this.
> >
> > Why?  linux,phandle is already special.  What does it mean if a  
> > linux,phandle has no value?
> 
> Well, making existing notation mean something different for this
> property seems to me a different order of special casing than
> auto-creating the property if it's not present to start with.
> 
> You know, I am inclined to make:
> 	linux,phandle = < &thisnode >;
> the approved way of doing this.  I *think* that will already work, but
> if not we can fix it.  The circular reference is slightly odd, but it
> is self-consistent.  I suppose we could still come up with a further
> shorthand so it's not necessary to make a label for a node to do this
> ('&.' or something for 'reference-to-containing-node').

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this _does_ work and is
what we did in the DTS to get phandles generated for nodes that were
going to be referenced by nodes dynamically created later.

Stuart