On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:40:38PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > On 11/10/2015 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >There's also the third option where we don't have any compatible strings > >in the subnodes at all. > Ok, two, but would you really want to go that way? Matching by node name costs > us all of the flexibility of DT sub-device selection. Still don't see an upside > as we would now be locked to node names instead of compatible strings to declare > component type compatibility (what they are for). Yes, we should go that way. No, there is nothing meaningful being lost - the fact that there is zero paramterisation in the bindings and each subfunction has the full device name as a compatible string ought to be a big red flag here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
