On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:46:32PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 15:35 +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: > > By the way, I know maybe it is difficult, but why not introduce a > > document of maintaining rules for the dt binding docs? we have dedicated > > maintainers for this part now. Description language from one submitter > > cannot satisfy every reviewer/maintainer, for a reg property, is it > > necessary to say "offset and length", > > Don't say "offset and length". It's both redundant with the base > definition of the reg property, and overly specific because it makes > assumptions about how the parent node's ranges are set up (sometimes we > want to be that specific, but usually not). To look at it another way, the format of the 'reg' property is defined by the parent bus's binding, not the binding of the node itself. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpxGCdaaV4UT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
