On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 23:54 +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Indeed, I tend to think that reg-names is a bad idea. >> >> IIRC, the rule for "reg" is that entries must always have a defined >> order, so that it can always be accessed by integer index. > > First time I hear about that rule, really... > >> And given >> that's true, allowing for reg-names just creates confusion since it >> implies you can look up the index in reg-names and then read reg at that >> index. > > I actually believe that named resources leave less are for error than > indexed ones. And this is the message I remember being "spread" in the > times of static platform devices. > > Pawel I can understand that reg-names being optional for older bindings to ensure backwards compat, but for newer ones agree that it is less error prone. This is something we should try to come to some agreement on. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
