On 29/02/16 11:01, Thierry Reding wrote: [snip] > I've always considered per-SoC invariant data to not belong into > bindings. That is, constants such as power partition IDs or SMMU client > IDs should be defined via tables in drivers, and DT should be used to > hook them up to devices. > > Defining the existing power domains in DT seems rather brittle to me. A > compatible string would imply the set of supported power domains anyway > and having that set specified in DT would technically require us to add > code in the driver to validate that the DT is sane, which would entail > the addition of a very similar table anyway. > > One further reason why I prefer not to have these things specified (as > opposed to "glued" together) in DT is that the DT is ABI, so if we ever > happen to ship a broken DT we won't be able to easily fix it. Driver > code, on the other hand, can always easily be fixed. Yes, I guess that is consistent with other Tegra drivers too. Ok, I will drop the reg property and just use the name. Cheers Jon -- 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
