Re: [RFC] Adding export-symbols to specification

> You have perfectly summarized the export-symbols goal and the benefit of
> this new feature.
>
> I am waiting for feedback from other people. I hope we will move forward
> on this topic and unblock several users (me included) stuck on this real
> issue.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Best regards,
> Hervé

While working on a Patch series to the specification itself, I realized 
that I was missing some edge cases, so wanted to discuss those:

# Scope

Should export-symbols only be used to resolve the properties in parent, 
or should all other children (and their decedents) use the 
`export-symbols` for resolving phandles and path references?

For example, should the following work:


parent {

     sibling {

         led = <&gpio 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>

     };


     export-symbols {

         gpio = <&my_gpio1>;

     };

};


This would also mean that bottoms up lookup needs to take place for all 
`export-symbols` that might be present in path to root, before using top 
level `__symbols__` or `/aliases`.


# Export symbols phandles

Can export symbols reference each other? For example is the following valid:


parent {

     export-symbols {

         shadow_gpio = <&my_gpio1>;

         gpio = <&shadow_gpio>;

     };

};


Best regards,

Ayush Singh